Global warming?
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 10 Jan 2010 19:57 On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 05:58:42 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >No damn way! > >It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are >forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold >spells on record with another cold front headed this way. Get used to it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html John
From: Don Klipstein on 10 Jan 2010 20:33 In <pan.2010.01.10.17.25.55.516000(a)nowhere.com>, Nobody wrote in part: >The people claiming that isolated weather measurements are evidence for or >against climate change (but note: it's only ever the deniers who do this) Both sides have done this. Currently, we're hearing this from the deniers because we have are having spectacularly cold weather in eastern 2/3 of USA, UK and France and nearby, and some heavily populated areas of eastern Asia, while no similarly major populated areas of the world are similarly warm or have been in the past couple of months. Meanwhile, I was hearing this from the warmingist side before, such as in 2003 when UK and most of western Europe had a spectacularly record hot summer. I also hear so many unusual weather events being blamed on global warming, when most of them are merely things that weather has always done. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Charlie E. on 10 Jan 2010 21:58 On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:25:55 +0000, Nobody <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >Or, more glibly: the plural of "anecdote" is not "data". > >The people claiming that isolated weather measurements are evidence for or >against climate change (but note: it's only ever the deniers who do this) >*know* that the argument is nonsense. It's essentially a "shibboleth", a >means by which members of the tribe can identify themselves to each other. Only deniers? When for years, every hurricane, tornado, or heat spell was just another indicator of global warming? Where have you been? ;-) Charlie
From: Bill Sloman on 10 Jan 2010 22:07 On Jan 11, 12:41 am, Mark <makol...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 10, 2:37 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 10, 7:59 am, d...(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: > > > > In <882c11a0-a68d-4e7e-873b-fd9edf957...(a)c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > Bill Slomanwrote: > > > > <SNIP to here, heavily including stuff said so many times that it would > > > be a big chore to get it requoted as-best-as-possible> > > > > >If you think that the case for anthropogenic global warming primarily > > > >depends on weather records from 1850, you don't understand the case, > > > > I have noted how you liked to say what happened after 1880. Only one of > > > the "Big 5" global temperature indices goes farther back, and that one > > > goes back to 1850. > > > > Keep in mind what atmospheric concentration was in 1850 or 1880, > > > according to youer favored sources - hardly above the "holocene-usual" of > > > 280 PPMV, likely 280-290 or so. > > > > >and need to plow through something like the American Institute of > > > >Physics web-site on the subject > > > > >http://www.aip.org/history/climate/ > > > > >> I don't think anyone with their head screwed on right would disagree > > > >> that AGW is real. The question is whether it is any more than man > > > >> accelerating the ramp to the next peak. > > > > >What "next peak"? If we didn't have anthropogenic global warming we'd > > > >be expecting the current slow decline in temperature - over the last > > > >8000 years - to accelerate into a decline into the next ice age, as it > > > >has for all the preceding inter-glacials for the last 400,000 years > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png > > > > I see that as true - we managed to avert the upcoming ice age, and I > > > expect that in the next couple centuries we well by a small margin set a > > > new global high termperature for Holocene. > > > > >> The alarmists have decided > > > >> that this means the end of the world as we know it. Anyone to dares > > > >> to disagree with them is immediately labelled as in denial or having > > > >> been conned by big oil. Ain't so. > > > > >Big oil - and big coal - have certainly spent a lot of money on > > > >weakening the public inpact of teh scie tific case. They seem to have > > > >spent a lot of the moeny with the organisations set up by the tobacco > > > >companies to mitigate the impact of the scientific evidence on the > > > >dangers of smoking > > > > >http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf > > > > >Since the "alarmists" don't present anthropogenic global warming as > > > >meaning the end of life as we know it, you do seem to have been > > > >influenced by denialist propaganda. > > > > However, many on the "warmingist side" appear to me to be overblowing > > > the warming to an extent requiring economy-denting solutions that "rogue > > > nations" will violate to their advantage. > > > > I only expect their violations to be large factor of global temperature > > > increasing by 2-3 degrees C in the next 2 centuries - and who is more > > > prepared for sea level to rise a meter or two? > > > > For that matter, who is in better shape for competitive advantage among > > > nations should we manage to melt Greenlan's icecap and raise sea level by > > > 6-7 meters? (a major upheaval) > > > > >For the record, the appropriate response to anthropogenic global > > > >warming is a progressive reduction in our use of fossil carbon as an > > > >energy source, which will probably double the cost of energy vis-a-vis > > > >labour and capital. This won't mean "the end of life as we know it" > > > >but rather a more gradual version of the economic adjustment that > > > >followed the 1973 oil crisis, when the price of oil went up by a > > > >factor of four in a year. > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis > > > > That part I agree with - but it appears to me that "Hubbert Peak Oil" > > > is very few years from now, and natural gas is 1.5 decades behind oil in > > > peaking, and energy prices will take only a few years from now on their > > > own to force demand to adapt to suplies showing themselves to be limited > > > even without any government intervention. > > > Unfortunately, there is still loads of coal. It is a cheaper - if less > > convenient - energy source than oil or natural gas, and the Fischer- > > Tropsch process can be used to turn it into oil. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process > > > At least the static plant can run with CO2 sequestration and eventual > > burial, if the "rogue nations" can be coerced into spending the extra > > money. > > > -- > >Bill Sloman, Nijmegen > > well now finally we get to the point > due to "peak oil," the use of oil will reduce no matter AWG or not > nat gas will also peak realtivly soon > > the real question is what we do with coal > > is the AWG hypothesis firm enough that we should regulate the use of > coal creating economic hardship? Expert opinion is that we should. The level of "economic hardship" isn't exactly dramatic - less so than the consequenes of the 1973 oil crisis, when the price of oil wnet up four-fold in a year. > Nobody is against developing "alternative energy" sources such as wind > or solar and having them compete... the question is should we > penalize coal for the sake of AWG? Certainly. > should we develop nuclear energy or coal for electricity in the US? Neither. > this is really the bottom line of AWG.. It has takne you a while to realise this - the commentators have been spelling this out for years. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 10 Jan 2010 22:21
On Jan 11, 12:52 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:41:56 -0800 (PST), Mark <makol...(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > SNIP > > >well now finally we get to the point > > >due to "peak oil," the use of oil will reduce no matter AWG or not > > >nat gas will also peak realtivly soon > > >the real question is what we do with coal > > >is the AWG hypothesis firm enough that we should regulate the use of > >coal creating economic hardship? > > >Nobody is against developing "alternative energy" sources such as wind > > I am against wind because it is worse than useless. Ravinghorde seems to differ from a whole lot of investors here. Windmills are supplying 19.7% of Denmark's electricity production http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark which isn't exactly useless. > During cold spell last winter and again this winter there has been no > wind. Where? >So at the time of peak demand wind doesn't contribute. At a time of peak demand, Ravinghorde couldn't see wind power contributing, which is all that he thinks he needs to know. > And I have seen data that shows this has happened in the US as well as the > UK. From the usual denialist web-sites, no doubt. > This failure means that coventional power stations must be up and > running and ready to supply the demand. Or stored energy units must be available. Dinorwic seems to have been designed by someone as inept as Ravinghorde, with relatively high losses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station Compressed air systems can be more efficient. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |