Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 18 Feb 10 - 07:13 PM Jaysus CHrist, Sawz...what IS your point, really? Are you asserting that the planet is not growing warmer as a result of human activity? If so, can you tell us what you really believe in simple terms? A |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Bill D Date: 18 Feb 10 - 07:34 PM ---(from my memory, not a precise quote)......Sawz recently said he DID see some evidence that the was some global warming, and that he thought some of it 'might' be related to human acivity. Now, I also do not quite understand the effort he is making to find ANY web reference to ANY information the can in ANY way be interpreted to be awkward or embarrassing to ANY liberal or supporter of Al Gore. He is spending a lot of effort to 'suggest'/insinuate that there is some conspiracy to fudge data on climate change, or that various individuals involved in campaigning to combat climate change shouldn't be trusted because of some personal details. I can go find the pages outlining the logical fallacies that are involved, but when I do that, they are usually ignored, denied or dismissed by those making the errors. I guess I'll just read now & then and hope for something more than long copy & paste 'information'.... |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 18 Feb 10 - 09:06 PM Amos: Apparently you are not reading this thread because you keep asking questions that have been answered. As to your objection to cut and paste, I might ask you whom cut and pasted what they claimed was the "truth" in an article that stated America's oil had been cut off. |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: gnu Date: 18 Feb 10 - 09:15 PM "America's oil had been cut off." ???? Were gonna hafta buy Calleeforneeahh green? |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 18 Feb 10 - 09:21 PM Amos: Thanks for dropping the fancy words that do not prove or disprove anything. Read the leaked emails. Logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges, "If many believe so, it is so." This type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people"), argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, the spreading of various religious and anti-religious beliefs, and of the Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger". |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Bill D Date: 18 Feb 10 - 10:00 PM I KNOW Amos...but I am NOT Amos..... I actually use my own name when posting. |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 18 Feb 10 - 11:19 PM The leaked emails may be scandalous in the popular hystrionic sense, but they have very little bearing on the real issues. I don't recall pasting any claim about America's oil had been cut off, but it is for sure it is a lot harder to get than it was fifty years ago. A |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 18 Feb 10 - 11:21 PM Sorry Bill My mistake. That is why the fancy words were gone. I should have known. |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Feb 10 - 07:09 AM Amos, "This endless stream of nullification and negative nabobbery is teeeeejous, man." This from YOU??? |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 19 Feb 10 - 10:35 AM Yes, Bruce. As is your little "blame Amos that we are assholes" shtick. There's a point where you have to own your own bullshit, dude, and using me as an excuse is just debilitating to your own soul. A |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 19 Feb 10 - 11:17 AM The fracture lines are countless, but probably the most important one runs through public opinion. A recent poll showed only 36 percent of Americans believing that the evidence of human-induced climate change is firm, down from 47 percent in early 2008. The rise of unemployment has perhaps made people more reluctant to accept adverse news on living standards. There is also considerable public confusion about climate science and possible remedies. Vested interests, especially coal and oil, play their predictable role. Half the states produce at least some coal, and around 30 states produce at least a bit of oil. In the dozen or so major coal or oil states, opposition to climate change action is politically powerful and well organized. Oil-producing states in the Gulf of Mexico tend to resist climate action even though the Gulf is probably already experiencing damage from rising hurricane intensity. The environmental community is also divided. Many environmental groups oppose nuclear power and any use of coal, even with carbon capture and sequestration technology. Conservationists have fought many renewable energy projects, opposing wind power near farms and coastlines, solar thermal plants in the desert and high-voltage transmission lines near residential communities. Another factor is the bargaining approach to climate legislation. Rather than defining a plan toward a low-carbon economy, the White House has left the negotiations to Congress and the lobbyists. The result is sprawling draft legislation, hard for the public to understand and replete with hidden and overt financial transfers to vested interests, especially in the allocation of emissions rights under a complex cap-and-trade system. Perhaps the legislation can still narrowly pass, which at this point would be the best option. If it stalls this spring, however, the climate and the rest of the world can't wait. A different approach is needed. Here are some components. First, the Environmental Protection Agency has the mandate to move under the Clean Air Act. It could impose a timetable of emissions standards for electric utilities and for vehicles, which together account for around three fourths of carbon emissions. There is also broad support for needed R&D funds and important scope for energy efficiency through weatherproofing and green building codes. Second, if cap-and-trade stalls, the administration and Congress should rethink their opposition to the much simpler option of a carbon tax. A predictable carbon tax would be much more effective than the cumbersome and nontransparent cap-and-trade system and might win broader assent as part of a package of deficit reduction. Third, the public needs to hear a plan. The administration has embraced a goal of 17 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, but it hasn't told us how that would be achieved. The public is scared that even this modest goal would slam jobs and living standards. It's time to spell out the changes in power generation, automobile technology and energy efficiency that can take us to our goals at modest cost and huge social benefit. Fourth, it's time to step up the response to the climate skeptics, who have misled the public. The Wall Street Journal leads the campaign against climate science, writing editorials charging that scientists are engaged in a massive conspiracy. I have made repeated invitations to the Journal editors to meet with climate scientists publicly for an open discussion or debate, but all have been rebuffed. ... (Scientific American) |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,infowars.com Date: 19 Feb 10 - 01:53 PM The best summary of the global warming situation I've come across lately can be found in an analysis of the movie Avatar. The note on "verbal manipulation" at the link below. Second point in that note talks about what happened in March of 2008. Fascinating: http://www2.moment.net/~michael/Avatar.htm |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Bill D Date: 19 Feb 10 - 02:33 PM There are various reasons why many people have come to be skeptical about climate change & warming. Part of it is just who they listen to and where they get their news. If they get 98% of what they process is from Faux News and related sources, they are gonna hear "it ain't true" 98% of the time. There are also those who talk themselves into skepticism because *gasp*,,,Liberals DO mostly accept the climate change scenarios. Some disbelieve because,like 9/11 conspiracy theories, there are SO many web sites claiming 'evidence' about the 'fraud'. Now.... the reasons why there are so many ...mostly conservatives... who publish & post and talk and rant about their 'doubts' are quite different. The driving forces behind getting all those sheep to nod and baaaaahhhh in agreement are based on the serious financial inconvenience it will be to certain major corporations and investors IF the world in general takes the problem seriously. There is WAY too much money tied up in preserving the status quo, or at least delaying action until they can get their cash cows into a different pasture. The trail of who is funding what in denial of climate change/warming is a scary labyrinth of vested interests paying ad agencies and lobbyists and funding 'experts' to do 'studies' which say what they want to hear. (Remember the campaign to slow down and discredit the anti-tobacco movement? That pales in comparison to this!) There was a 'rule' propounded about political issues a few years ago..."No matter what they're talking about, they're talking about MONEY!" (naawwww...don't ask me to 'prove' this. But watch... once alternative energies are common, see who controls them.) |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Bill D Date: 19 Feb 10 - 02:43 PM (and yes, I recognize the minority opinions, such as beardedbruce, who sort of accepts that 'something' is happening, but still has a list of things to criticize liberals about. Seems they are not doing the 'right' things to prepare...like planning to move millions of people further North. He hasn't said what expects Canada to do with all those Latinos...) |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Don Firth Date: 19 Feb 10 - 02:51 PM Can't remember who said it, but: "We'll not have solar power until they figure out how to run a sunbeam through a meter." Don Firth |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 19 Feb 10 - 03:46 PM "This endless stream of nullification and negative nabobbery is teeeeejous, man." Well then cut it out Amos. Do you have any facts to present or just negative statements, ad hominem attacks and rhetoric? Amos Date: 08 Jan 06 - 04:13 PM The straight answer about ad hominem arguments: they have no lefgitimate place in debate. |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 19 Feb 10 - 11:58 PM I have a thought. Geothermal energy uses heat from the earth to heat and cool. Therefore it does not use fossil energy or produce any heat to create energy except for pumps. It merely transfers heat to or from the earth's crust. Geothermal systems are available now. It is not some theoretical unproven future technology. Perhaps geothermal energy is the answer to thermal pollution. Up in PA they have hot springs they use for heating. If you could drill into the magma near a volcano you could produce steam for electric generation. |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Feb 10 - 09:07 AM I am all in favor of geothermal, tidal, and hydroelectric power generation. There are effectively carbon neutral energy sources ( I am looking at a wood pellet system) and it is reasonable to try to reduce pollution. This does NOT mean that I think that reducing one of several greenhouse gases will change the climate changes that have been in action for the lasst 1.5 billion years or so. IF one wishes to take action, how about moving those people in harms way, instead of claiming you can stop the water from rising? "Seems they are not doing the 'right' things to prepare...like planning to move millions of people further North. He hasn't said what expects Canada to do with all those Latinos...) " And isn't TODAY the time to ASK about those plans, instead of when those Latinos are moving north because their homes are no longer habitable? I DO NOT HAVE THE ANSWER- Nor should I be deciding for the Canadian Government. |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 20 Feb 10 - 12:00 PM The retreat of glaciers and the loss of moisture from soil due to climate change will likely increase the number of large-scale dust storms, such as those that blanketed Sydney in 2009, scientists predict. "Every year, hundreds of millions of tonnes of African dust are carried westward across the Atlantic to South America, the Caribbean and to the North America," as well as across the Mediterranean and the Middle East, said Joseph Prospero, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Miami. His group has been measuring global dust plumes from a site in Barbados since 1965 – the longest dust storm data so far collected – and matching it with satellite images. Whitish haze The storms create a whitish haze in the summer skies for several days, depositing a thin film on homes and cars in southern USA and the Caribbean. Data from a collecting site established in Iceland in 1991 shows similar dust storms over the Arctic, which dump fine soil over North America and northern Europe. His group believe they most come from retreating glaciers, he told a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Diego. "Huge spike" "Every huge spike we see in our samples – we're talking about hundreds of micrograms per cubic mere of dust – we can identify in satellite images, from the most part, from para-glacial deposits in the five major glaciers on Iceland," Prospero said. "These glaciers are retreating, and if they continue to retreat, then you're going to be exposing more of this sub-glacial grinding," leading to more dust fallout over Britain and Europe, he added. Scientists have long known that the grinding of rock by massive icesheets during the last ice age created the rich soils of Europe and North America. "Glaciers are profound producers of fine-grained particles through the rock-grinding process that creates 'rock flour'," said Daniel Muhs of the U.S. Geological Survey in Denver. "There were periods in the Earth's past that were dustier than now … and those primarily correspond with glacial periods," he added. ... Cosmos Mag |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Feb 10 - 05:05 PM Amos: How many glaciers are there in the world? How many are shrinking? How many are not shrinking? How many are growing? |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 20 Feb 10 - 05:32 PM I don't know why I should do your legwork for you, pal. To answer your question, a roughly estimated 100,000 exist. Some are growing, most receding. The net mass of icebergs from those being monitored has declined continuously over the last 20 years. The measurement population, though, is between 29 and 80 glaciers. Here's the World Glacier Monitoring website. Here's an inventory of over 100000 glaciers from the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Here's the United States Geodetic Survey fact sheet giving their results. |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Bill D Date: 20 Feb 10 - 05:51 PM "I DO NOT HAVE THE ANSWER- Nor should I be deciding for the Canadian Government. " Then...I shall provide the answer. It is not possible to both move millions of people from ANY areas which become almost uninhabitable to areas like Canada & Siberia and feed & house them adequately also. *IF* serious problems continue and the outlook looks bleak, we MUST reduce the overall population of the Earth by at least half.... if serious problems mitigate and we seems to have breathing room, we SHOULD reduce the overall population by 'almost' half. I could type 9 paragraphs explaining it, but those who agree already understand, and those who don't won't accept it. (Do I know HOW? Yes.... Do I think there's any possibility of getting any world-wide consensus on any such idea? No...) |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Feb 10 - 07:11 PM BillD, "*IF* serious problems continue and the outlook looks bleak, we MUST reduce the overall population of the Earth by at least half.... if serious problems mitigate and we seems to have breathing room, we SHOULD reduce the overall population by 'almost' half.' I agree. But who gets to decide which half gets reduced? By NOT addressing the problem, and pretending that "carbon limits" will solve all problems, the Goreistas are making the next World War much more likely than any rational reduction of population. IMO, of course- you may disagree. feel free to tell me how ignoring the population problem contributes to world peace. |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 21 Feb 10 - 02:36 PM "net mass of icebergs from those being monitored has declined continuously over the last 20 years. The measurement population, though, is between 29 and 80 glaciers." Is 29 to 80 glaciers out of 100000 is a fair sample? There are 15000 in the Himalayas alone. How many of them are being monitored? You let someone else do the thinking for you. Are you in incapable? When asked for some specific facts you refer people elsewhere. "The USGS Benchmark Glacier Program began in 1957 as a result of research efforts during the International Geophysical Year (Meier and others, 1971). Annual data collection occurs at three glaciers that represent three climatic regions in the United States: South Cascade Glacier in the Cascade Mountains of Washington State; Wolverine Glacier on the Kenai Peninsula near Anchorage, Alaska; and Gulkana Glacier in the interior of Alaska " 3 whole glaciers represent every glacier in the US. Two hundred years [dating back before the CO2 buildup started] of glacial shrinkage in Alaska, and then came the winter and summer of 2007-2008. Unusually large amounts of winter snow were followed by unusually chill temperatures in June, July and August. "In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound," said U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia. "On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface of the Taku Glacier in late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying, located at about 1,500 feet elevation, did not become snow free until early August. "In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years." Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too. "It's been a long time on most glaciers where they've actually had positive mass balance," Molnia said. |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 21 Feb 10 - 10:27 PM Amos: I found your oil cut off post. #9,401 out of 54,856 Where do you want it? Here or on another thread? |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 21 Feb 10 - 10:40 PM Where is the physics guy KP? What do you think about Geothermal as a partial answer to heat pollution? Even The generator in a hydro electric plant produce heat because they are not 100% efficient. Same way with Wind power. Solar does not produce heat when it is generated. However the energy produced all 3 ways ends up as heat when the electricity is used. Nuclear generation makes a huge amount of heat. Geothermal heat pumps (sometimes referred to as GeoExchange, earth-coupled, ground-source, or water-source heat pumps) have been in use since the late 1940s. Geothermal heat pumps (GHPs) use the constant temperature of the earth as the exchange medium instead of the outside air temperature. This allows the system to reach fairly high efficiencies (300%-600%) on the coldest of winter nights, compared to 175%-250% for air-source heat pumps on cool days. While many parts of the country experience seasonal temperature extremes from scorching heat in the summer to sub-zero cold in the winter a few feet below the earth's surface the ground remains at a relatively constant temperature. Depending on latitude, ground temperatures range from 45°F (7°C) to 75°F (21°C). Like a cave, this ground temperature is warmer than the air above it during the winter and cooler than the air in the summer. The GHP takes advantage of this by exchanging heat with the earth through a ground heat exchanger. As with any heat pump, geothermal and water-source heat pumps are able to heat, cool, and, if so equipped, supply the house with hot water. Some models of geothermal systems are available with two-speed compressors and variable fans for more comfort and energy savings. Relative to air-source heat pumps, they are quieter, last longer, need little maintenance, and do not depend on the temperature of the outside air. A dual-source heat pump combines an air-source heat pump with a geothermal heat pump. These appliances combine the best of both systems. Dual-source heat pumps have higher efficiency ratings than air-source units, but are not as efficient as geothermal units. The main advantage of dual-source systems is that they cost much less to install than a single geothermal unit, and work almost as well. Even though the installation price of a geothermal system can be several times that of an air-source system of the same heating and cooling capacity, the additional costs are returned to you in energy savings in 5 -10 years. System life is estimated at 25 years for the inside components and 50+ years for the ground loop. There are approximately 50,000 geothermal heat pumps installed in the United States each year. |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Feb 10 - 07:30 AM Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown David Adam guardian.co.uk, Sunday 21 February 2010 18.00 GMT The Maldives is likely to become submerged if the current pace of climate change continues to raise sea levels. Photograph: Reinhard Krause/Reuters Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings. The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century. At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results". The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher. Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100. Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate. Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion. "Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances." Nature Publishing Group, which publishes Nature Geoscience, said this was the first paper retracted from the journal since it was launched in 2007. The paper – entitled "Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change" – used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements to reconstruct how sea level has fluctuated with temperature since the peak of the last ice age, and to project how it would rise with warming over the next few decades. In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work. "One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes." In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for "bringing these issues to our attention". |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,KP Date: 22 Feb 10 - 08:01 AM 'Where is the physics guy KP? What do you think about Geothermal as a partial answer to heat pollution?' Sawzaw, I'm on a different time zone to most of the rest of you guys (Bruce, Amos etc) hence you'll get comments from me at seemingly random times. Plus I spent much of the weekend digging a car out of a foot of snow in Northern Scotland. Two points. 1. Geothermal is good. I know people with experience on ground source heat pumps, and who certainly wouldn't build/buy a new house without one. They work well with underfloor heating, which means you don't have radiators taking up wall space. I don't have experience of heat pumps with cooling/conditioning systems as air con is less essential at 55 North... Main issue with ground source heat pumps is having enough space to drill the holes, especially if you are in town. In much of America, that shouldn't be a problem as you have a lot more room! In the longer and bigger picture geothermal energy could be very important for the US. There is a technology called 'hot dry rock' or 'enhanced geothermal' where a fluid is pumped into fractured subsurface rocks. The fluid can be used directly for heat or indirectly for electricity. MIT have estimated the US could install 100GW of this technology by 2050 (total US electricity demand is between 650-750GW). Geothermal using existing technology seems undeveloped and there is at least 10GW of buildable plants see US Geothermal Power Could Top 10 Gigawatts. Here is a summary I wrote about the current status of various renewable technologies (apologies if I put this up before, its been a long thread!) Current Status of Renewables 2. Regarding your worry about heat pollution, I think that on a global scale all renewables are good. Let me explain without any maths. Heat pollution will only warm the planet if the heat wasn't there to start with! So a coal fired plant creates a lot of excess heat (about 45%) that goes into the atmosphere. Where did the heat energy come from? From the chemical energy in the coal, which has been locked up for 250 million years. So burning that coal suddenly is going to release heat that wasn't there before (at least for 250 million years). And there could be a 'global warming' effect. But think about a wind or wave power plant. Was it is doing, is just concentrating energy that is already there in the atmosphere or oceans of the planet. The waves are already pounding away and the wind is already blowing. Ultimately that energy comes from the heat supplied by the sun - no sun, no atmospheric circulation, no wind. So in a wind/wave plant we are taking a little of the earth's heat, concentrating and transforming it to a convenient form (generally electricity). We are not producing heat that wasn't there before, so on a global scale wind/wave/solar plants are not going to warm up the planet. To get heat from a wave plant, we are in effect cooling the ocean slightly, so it all balances out. As you have pointed out, all these technologies have waste/inefficiencies. There could well be local heat pollution - in fact there is almost certain to be somewhere, whatever technology you use, but that's a different story and its not going to warm the plant as a whole. I think you could make the same argument for nuclear. What you are doing is concentrating heat that was already there in the earth (radioactive ores produce heat) and using that to make electricity and creating waste heat. The heat will be coming out into the air (or into the cooling water that nuclear plants) use rather than into the earth's crust so there will be some heat capacity issues but the total amount of heat released will be same. However, I'm more of a chemist than a physicist so I'll check that out some time. Finally, I am encouraged that both you and Bruce are both (as he puts it) 'all in favor of geothermal, tidal, and hydroelectric power'. I'd guess that Bill D and Amos are as well. So essentially, despite the near 1000 posts of argument here, there is actually a consensus there. Some people might say 'build renewable plants because of global warming' some might say 'build renewable plants to avoid pollution' and some might say 'build renewable plants so we don't have to get oil from the Middle East'. I just worry that the need to get on and build the things gets obscured by the politics of everything. We know/expect that there are lots of interested parties and vested interests, but the actions that need taking seem fairly clear - build renewable plants, encourage energy efficiency at home and in offices, inflate your car tyres properly. And the nice thing is that some of this is stuff that individuals can do as well as governments and corporations. If this thread is going to carry on, I'd like to see people trying to aim for a consensus rather than just keep posting quotes that support their arguments - and I'm not looking at anyone in particular there. cheers KP PS It amuses me how the most argumentative threads among US Mudcatters are the political ones whereas the Brits get all het up about the definitions of folk music. Do you think I could start an inclusive thread along the lines of 'Obama supports 1954 definition' or 'Palin likes Show of Hands'? :) |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Feb 10 - 08:22 AM Guest KP, "I think you could make the same argument for nuclear. What you are doing is concentrating heat that was already there in the earth (radioactive ores produce heat) and using that to make electricity and creating waste heat. The heat will be coming out into the air (or into the cooling water that nuclear plants) use rather than into the earth's crust so there will be some heat capacity issues but the total amount of heat released will be same. However, I'm more of a chemist than a physicist so I'll check that out some time." The problem with nuclear ( which I prefer, for other reasons, but realize it's weakness) is that the heat release is accelerated- the natural rate of decay would be thousands of years or more, which a reactor releases in a few years. Waste is a problem ( though less than coal, since the amount of fuel required is so much less) but but recycling of used fuel , and reuse of waste as radioisotopes for medical and industrial use would take care of that. Recycling in general is good- it takes less energy to reuse aluminum than to produce it from ore. MOST of what the Goreistas want to do has some benefits- it is just that 1. the reason they give is false, which WHEN CLIMATE CHANGE occurs anyway will invalidate ( to the public) what they propose, EVEN WHEN IT IS a good thing to be doing. 2. They do NOTHING to adapt the population or even civilization to the change that will occur, regardless of their actions. The false sense of "safty" they offer will prevent the required actions to adapt until it is both more exspensive, and much more likely to be done by violent actions. |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ebbie Date: 22 Feb 10 - 10:04 AM Posted by Sawzaw: "In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound," said U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia. "On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface of the Taku Glacier in late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying, located at about 1,500 feet elevation, did not become snow free until early August. "In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years." "Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too." Living in Alaska, I can attest that the summer of 2008 was a wet, chilly one. It will evidently go down in history that way, because it is frequently referenced locally. The summer of 2009, on the other hand, was gorgeous. Instead of being the normal "drizzle two weeks and 2 days sun" it was the other way around. That summer too will go down in history. And neither one has a thing to say about global warming or climate change. What is true is that the glaciers in Alaska are thinning, retreating, breaking up. Incidentally, why the U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia chose to refer to the Taku Glacier beats me. We are well aware that the Taku is one of the few that is still growing. It is in the Taku River valley where they routinely experience 35 feet of snow or more each winter; perhaps that is why. You will find no deer there evidently for that reason although there are moose. |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 22 Feb 10 - 10:48 AM (radioactive ores produce heat) That is a good point but concentrating the ore does consume a lot of energy just like the production if Cornohol. Or maybe Nuclear could be used to refine the ore. Ultimately nuclear makes steam which drives a generator which is not 100% percent efficient and it goes through a power grid which is not 100% efficient and drives motors or lighting which are not 100% efficient. I forgot about Tidal but like Hydro The generators will produce heat that was not there. Geo takes heat that is already there to heat a home and it takes heat from the home and puts it back in the earth's crust. I believe that most Geo uses a heat pump to collect the heat which has a motor that uses electricity some of which turns into heat. The direct Geo system you described would be good with no compressor to waste heat. Run it on solar during the day and wind at night and there will be virtually no heat pollution. |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 22 Feb 10 - 11:02 AM "the glaciers" How many? You have mentioned one that is growing but it is not among the three that are being monitored and are shrinking. All they do is a sample. Is that sample representative? Of ALL the glaciers, how many are shrinking, how many are static and how many are growing? Even after that is determined you have to account for the different sizes of the glaciers to get an accurate measure. Posted by Sawzall: "Two hundred years [dating back before the CO2 buildup started] of glacial shrinkage in Alaska," Why were the glaciers in Alaska shrinking 200 years ago? |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ebbie Date: 22 Feb 10 - 11:14 AM The shrinkage in Alaska and at the North Pole is unprecedented in recorded history. As you know. |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 22 Feb 10 - 11:38 AM There are probably 100-200 thousand glaciers on the planet. Of those being monitored, the net effect planet wide is shrinkage, significant loss of mass. Going around and arguing about them one by one is puerile when the system-wide facts are clear. A |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Wolfgang Date: 22 Feb 10 - 11:45 AM Phil Jones' interview by the BBC I haven't seen a link to this here, just some selected quotes. Apologies If I have overlooked the link to the interview. Wolfgang |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Feb 10 - 11:49 AM Amos, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall "Going around and arguing about them one by one is puerile when the system-wide facts are clear." And when the system wide facts ARE NOT CLEAR? Then demanding all believe one view, when it is NOT proven nor accepted by as many as you claim, is even more so. |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 22 Feb 10 - 11:52 AM Lemme see--you have just proposed that correcting a single false report about sea-levels rates of rise means that glacier shrinkage measured by international scientific agencies is not clear? The implication is that when a scientist withdraws an erroneous report, it proves that all scientists are liuars... I thought you were capable of thinking more clearly than that, Bruce. |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Feb 10 - 12:00 PM NO, Amos, as you well know. "Lemme see--you have just proposed that correcting a single false report about sea-levels rates of rise means that glacier shrinkage measured by international scientific agencies is not clear? " **I** state that the fact that the number of reports that have been called into question requires anyone interested in the truth as opposed to a predetermined result will LOOK AT THE FACTS, and stop saying that everything is known and determined. YOUR statement is flawwed logic, as you know. Any reason you feel your view is so weak that you need to resort to such a cheap shot? |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Bill D Date: 22 Feb 10 - 12:21 PM ALL scientific data should be constantly be reviewed, re-evaluated and updated. Sadly, Sawz and BB are twisting this to insinuate that ANY error or update on some detail casts doubt on overall indications and widely accepted general patterns. (Some conservative politicians and Faux News pundits have actually been sarcastically saying that recent weather in Wash DC indicates that overall warming patterns are an illusion. I think Ebbie in Alaska & various folks in Canada could explain to them that the warmer air ain't gone....it's just relocated briefly) |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 22 Feb 10 - 12:26 PM PErmafrost conversion, giant calving of a magnitude not seen in my lifetime, and a LOT of reliable scientific observations tend to support the notion that the rate of warming, not just the temperature, is increasing. That--to me--is the critical issue. If you have good reason to believe this is not the case, what facts (rather than an intermittent invalidation) do you base this on? A |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 22 Feb 10 - 12:31 PM Scientific American: "Despite Climategate, IPPC Mostly Underestimates Climate Change Speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, James McCarthy of the Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment noted that the IPCC usually errs on the conservative side. Steve Mirsky reports Lost in the coverage of the so-called climategate email controversy is a key point about the IPCC's track record of climate change estimates. James McCarthy is on the faculty of the Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment. He spoke February 21st at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Diego: "If you were to go back and map the IPCC projection for sea level rise and temperature in 1990, look at it in 1995, look at it in 2000. In retrospect you would find that they were conservative. So we talk about errors. If you were to do two ledgers—here are IPCC overestimates, here are IPCC underestimates—over the 20 or so years that these assessments have been running, the underestimate ledger would be much larger than the overestimate. Even with glitches—clearly erroneous editing or sloppy editing that led to these erroneous statements that got us in trouble recently."" |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Feb 10 - 12:49 PM Amos, "of a magnitude not seen in my lifetime" I am glad the your lifetime is of geological significance. But what about looking a little farther back, and seeing the same warming ( such as before 1100ad, which was the start of the "little ice age") ALL the statements include the comment that this is the worst melting " in the records", and keep silent that the records only go back 100 years or so- a geologically ( and astrophysically) insignificant time. THEN you complain about people who take a single storm to indicate the overal weather? YOU are taking a single century to indicate weather over times measured in thousands of years. |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 22 Feb 10 - 01:00 PM That is sheer horsepucky, BB. The graphs I have linked to upthread go back as far as measurements can be constructed. All this neener neener ad-hominem bullshit is wearing, not enlightening, adds no insight and simply makes the argument mediocre--the kind of sluggishness in which the right-wing seems to specialize as their most important product. A |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Feb 10 - 01:33 PM "back as far as measurements can be constructed." Which is HOW LONG??? I see more horsepucky in your posts than I can even dream of. |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 22 Feb 10 - 01:54 PM I found your oil cut off post. #9,401 out of 54,856 THis may be a data base glitch but when I go to that number it is a quote from The Onion and says nothing about oil. How about a link or a timestamp, there? A |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 22 Feb 10 - 07:25 PM AP) -- Top researchers now agree that the world is likely to get stronger but fewer hurricanes in the future because of global warming, seeming to settle a scientific debate on the subject. But they say there's not enough evidence yet to tell whether that effect has already begun. Since just before Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana and Mississippi in 2005, dueling scientific papers have clashed about whether global warming is worsening hurricanes and will do so in the future. The new study seems to split the difference. A special World Meteorological Organization panel of 10 experts in both hurricanes and climate change - including leading scientists from both sides - came up with a consensus, which is published online Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience. "We've really come a long way in the last two years about our knowledge of the hurricane and climate issue," said study co-author Chris Landsea, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration top hurricane researcher. The technical term for these storms are tropical cyclones; in the Atlantic they get called hurricanes, elsewhere typhoons. The study offers projections for tropical cyclones worldwide by the end of this century, and some experts said the bad news outweighs the good. Overall strength of storms as measured in wind speed would rise by 2 to 11 percent, but there would be between 6 and 34 percent fewer storms in number. Essentially, there would be fewer weak and moderate storms and more of the big damaging ones, which also are projected to be stronger due to warming. An 11 percent increase in wind speed translates to roughly a 60 percent increase in damage, said study co-author Kerry Emanuel, a professor of meteorology at MIT. The storms also would carry more rain, another indicator of damage, said lead author Tom Knutson, a research meteorologist at NOAA." (Phys.Org) |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 22 Feb 10 - 07:35 PM Composite Temp Measurements for the last 200 years with a discussion on provenance and reliability... Goddard Institute compilation of mean tem changes 1880-2005. A |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 23 Feb 10 - 02:29 AM Ebbie I did not know that there were glaciers at the north pole. Do you know why the glaciers were shrinking 200 years ago? "Of those being monitored, the net effect planet wide is shrinkage, significant loss of mass." Amos: Is the one that is growing in Alaska included? If not, how can the results be accurate. I used to think you were extremely smart but just hyper and too smart almost like a savant. You certainly project that image with those wonderful words you impress yourself with. I am now developing a different opinion. You do not even know how many glaciers are being monitored even though it is right here in this thread. Have you even read this thread or do you just come here to post your rabid ad hominem attacks? |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 23 Feb 10 - 08:28 AM Climategate Meets the Law: Senator Inhofe To Ask for DOJ Investigation (Pajamas Media/PJTV Exclusive) Inhofe intends to ask for a probe of the embattled climate scientists for possible criminal acts. And he thinks Gore should be recalled to explain his prior congressional testimony. February 23, 2010 - by Charlie Martin Page 1 of 2 Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called "the greatest scientific scandal of our generation" — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate Files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify. "In [Gore's] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted," Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress. Just prior to a hearing at 10:00 a.m. EST, Senator Inhofe released a minority staff report from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which he is ranking member. Senator Inhofe is asking the Department of Justice to investigate whether there has been research misconduct or criminal actions by the scientists involved, including Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Science. This report, obtained exclusively by Pajamas Media before today's hearing, alleges: [The] Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works believe the scientists involved may have violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, federal laws. In addition to these findings, we believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC -backed "consensus" and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes. As has been reported here at Pajamas Media over the last several months, the exposure of the Climategate Files has led to a re-examination of the IPCC Assessment Reports, especially the fourth report (AR4), published in 2007. The IPCC AR4 report was named by Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson as one of the major sources of scientific support for the agency's Endangerment Finding, the first step towards allowing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Since the Climategate Files were released, the IPCC has been forced to retract a number of specific conclusions — such as a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 — and has been forced to confirm that the report was based in large part on reports from environmental activist groups instead of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Dr. Murari Lal, an editor of the IPCC AR4 report, admitted to the London Daily Mail that he had known the 2035 date was false, but was included in the report anyway "purely to put political pressure on world leaders." Based on this Minority Staff report, Senator Inhofe will be calling for an investigation into potential research misconduct and possible criminal acts by the researchers involved. At the same time, Inhofe will ask the Environmental Protection Agency to reopen its consideration of an Endangerment Finding for carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Federal Clean Air Act, and will ask Congress to withdraw funding for further consideration of carbon dioxide as a pollutant. In requesting that the EPA reopen the Endangerment Finding, Inhofe joins with firms such as the Peabody Energy Company and several state Attorneys General (such as Texas and Virginia) in objecting to the Obama administration's attempt to extend regulatory control over carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. Senator Inhofe believes this staff report "strengthens the case" for the Texas and Virginia Attorneys General. Senator Inhofe's announcement today appears to be the first time a member of Congress has formally called for an investigation into research misconduct and potential criminal acts by the scientists involved. more here |
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 23 Feb 10 - 10:33 AM Oh, Sawz, don't be asinine. I posted the links that provided the approximate count of glaciers int he first place. Your obsession with counting glaciers is just a bunch of tanglefoot, as far as I can see, ignoring the sytemic condition by zeroing in on local variations. A |