Talk-Polywell.org

Is this what has you so frightened, Alex?

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

It is the best piece of panic-mongering I have seen in a long time. It makes Al Gore's stuff seem like near-beer.

I've been checking the evaporation data. Here it is for Texas from 1958 to 1998:

https://ceprofs.civil.tamu.edu/folivera ... hibber.htm

There is a major discrepancy between the claims made in the BBC piece and the data gathered and reduced by Texas A&M. We had less evaporation in 1958 than we had in 1998. Our peak evaporation occurred in 1978 and it was rather large.

I had not heard a word about this Global Dimming business until I stumbled across the BBC piece while l was looking for something else. It brings up a very long list of questions, if you are wiling to discuss them.

icarus wrote:Yet we are fed the line that they can predict the climate to unbelievable levels of accuracy. The climate scientists have dragged science into the gutter of politics to fulfill their "environmental" goals.

My concern is over how far pure science has gambled its reputation with AGW. Pure science has gone "all in" on AGW, pronouncing the predictions validated and assured beyond question. Every ever more extreme Apocalyptic prediction is supported. When public credulity saturates the prestige of science goes way south, and I worry that the vast majority of the enterprise of pure research will go with it. Technology, applied science, will continue; but the large faculties, institutes and budgets devoted to the fundamental questions will evaporate.

A massive "me too!" effort by the science profs to make nice with their drinking budies and ideological conferees in the humanities departments. The irony is that the humanities conferees will not shed a tear over the "evaporation" of pure science. Postmodernist enthusiasms like "social justice" and Green philosophy require social stasis and an end to high energy discoveries. The West's leadership class has embraced the Precautionary Principle's "No Risk!" philosophy for 40+ years now, and the one thing fundamental new breakthroughs produce is risk a la mode.

icarus wrote:I eagerly anticipate the day that IPCC scientists are in a court of law, under penalty of perjury and subject to civil damages for wrecking whole economies, explaining how they have validated the atmospheric turbulence parts of their GCM models.

I do not. Pure science burns with them.

Duane

djolds1 wrote:I do not. Pure science burns with them.

Science is not at fault here. The few scientists who have gone along with the so-called Environmentalists and distorted data are somewhat at fault, but the real prize should go to our current crop of politicians who have decided to play at being a cross between the Gestapo and the NKVD.

Ooh, them dadblasted Maldives!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIbTJ6mhCqk

The dadgone BBC fibbed to me. Imagine that!

I do not. Pure science burns with them.

Too late Duane, they have already burned that one.

I'm reading the Lindzen paper and it is just devastating. There is no way to pull respect for science out of the wreckage AGW has created.

And Duane, as you well know we see the same thing in fusion. The consensus is Tokamak and alternative approaches no matter how much merit will be strangled.

So that is two data points. What you want to bet that there are others? For the very reasons pointed out by Lindzen. Policy makers do not get science. They have different priorities. No "wasted" funds. But science is not like that. If you are not striking out on about half the things you try you are not learning much.

The flaw is that science is being treated as a branch of engineering rather than vice versa. i.e. every bridge must stand (not a bad idea) and every attempt to learn something must produce new positive knowledge. Learning "this will not work" is not acceptable.

Billy Catringer wrote:I had not heard a word about this Global Dimming business until I stumbled across the BBC piece while l was looking for something else. It brings up a very long list of questions, if you are wiling to discuss them.

IMO Global Dimming has been solidly established as human caused. Tested September 12th, 2001. Virtually no jet aircraft over CONUS, and the global dimming effect was reduced. Does appear to be a high atmosphere side effect of jet engine exhaust.

Billy Catringer wrote:

djolds1 wrote:I do not. Pure science burns with them.

Science is not at fault here. The few scientists who have gone along with the so-called Environmentalists and distorted data are somewhat at fault, but the real prize should go to our current crop of politicians who have decided to play at being a cross between the Gestapo and the NKVD.

"Fault" does not matter, because IMO the damage is done. AGW is much like any other bubble that has yet to burst. The eventual consequences can be seen, but no one is willing to stop pumping up the bubble, much less slowly deflate it, because the stakes of wealth and status are so high.

But the pols could not have done it without high profile scientists screaming "Ragnarok!" as well. IMO men like Hansen have started an avalanche to serve their own egos, ideological hobbyhorses (going back to "Limits of Growth" Malthusianism) and self-aggrandizement. Hundreds to thousands more jumped on the bandwagon to milk it for funds and reassure themselves of their own righteousness. The enterprise of science waits sedately on the lower slopes while the avalanche approaches.

MSimon wrote:

I do not. Pure science burns with them.

Too late Duane, they have already burned that one.

I'm reading the Lindzen paper and it is just devastating. There is no way to pull respect for science out of the wreckage AGW has created.

And Duane, as you well know we see the same thing in fusion. The consensus is Tokamak and alternative approaches no matter how much merit will be strangled.

I'm hoping to get a good GUT and some childhood dreams out of the process before the credibility of pure science self-immolates. FTL would be nice too, but I'll settle on high Isp rockets.

MSimon wrote:So that is two data points. What you want to bet that there are others? For the very reasons pointed out by Lindzen. Policy makers do not get science. They have different priorities. No "wasted" funds. But science is not like that. If you are not striking out on about half the things you try you are not learning much.

The flaw is that science is being treated as a branch of engineering rather than vice versa. i.e. every bridge must stand (not a bad idea) and every attempt to learn something must produce new positive knowledge. Learning "this will not work" is not acceptable.

There have been times in the past, centuries to millennia long, when people were satisfied that they had the answers to the "big" questions and merely twittered at the edges with toys (i.e. engineering). I think the same is coming 'round again.

The earth receives about 174 petawatts of energy from the sun, natural internal energy sources add perhaps 26 terawatts, and waste heat from burning fossil fuel generates another 13 terawatts (and rising).

A rough energy budget is here: http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/whatis.html

Since conduction and convection don't occur in a vacuum, and evaporation is usually fairly limited, a planet must dissipate the majority of its energy through radiation.

There is an absolute limit on the rate at which a perfect radiator (a "black body") can radiate energy, given by the Stefan–Boltzmann law. All other things being equal, radiated energy rises as the fourth power of absolute temperature, so a "black body" at 357K (84C) can radiate away twice as much energy as one at 300K (27C).

A planet is not a perfect radiator, and radiates only a proportion of the theoretical maximum, but still scales with the fouth power of absolute temperature.

So generating an extra 2 petawatts of waste heat (150 times the current figure) would produce a 1C rise in global temperature.

This is a smaller effect than changes in the earth's reflectivity or distance from the sun, but a likely consequence of commercial fusion.

Billy Catringer wrote:

alexjrgreen wrote:Why do you think this? On what evidence?

Because of your claim that there are so many people on the planet that they are ruining it. Population growth in the US is positive only because of immigration. Population growth in all other industrialized nations is zero or negative. Clearly, you would favor a drop in human population.

This is pure fantasy on your part.

Billy Catringer wrote:Is this what has you so frightened, Alex?

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

It is the best piece of panic-mongering I have seen in a long time. It makes Al Gore's stuff seem like near-beer.

I don't need to be frightened because we have enough technology to cope.

Pretending to know what other people are thinking is a mug's game - frequent failure is guaranteed. And using ad-hominem argument makes it look as though you don't have a proper case. Which is untrue. Right?

The link you gave is incorrect. It should be:

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

alexjrgreen wrote:

Billy Catringer wrote:

alexjrgreen wrote:Why do you think this? On what evidence?

Because of your claim that there are so many people on the planet that they are ruining it. Population growth in the US is positive only because of immigration. Population growth in all other industrialized nations is zero or negative. Clearly, you would favor a drop in human population.

This is pure fantasy on your part.

Not an unreasonable inference given your previous posts. However, instead of calling those inferences "fantasy" why not provide some data points. i.e. where you actually stand.

I'll give you a head start: "here is what I think and why".

Answering that question would be more helpful than just saying "you don't know" followed by the implication "and I'm not going to tell".

MSimon wrote:

alexjrgreen wrote:

Billy Catringer wrote: Because of your claim that there are so many people on the planet that they are ruining it. [...]

This is pure fantasy on your part.

Not an unreasonable inference given your previous posts.

The point is that I never claimed "that there are so many people on the planet that they are ruining it."

What I actually said was:

Now that our population is 7 billion and rising, the amount of waste heat we generate is becoming a significant effect.

I also said

Yet "decreased standards of living, reduced economic growth, and starvation and death for millions" would also be the result of "full speed ahead". On a global scale, any change at all is likely to produce millions of winners and losers.

and linked to a story about a Chinese drought.

The link I used has expired, but the story is also here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/environm ... UL20090207

To conclude that I "would be delighted over the news of such a drought" is just ugly ad-hominem.

Alex,

I apologize for offending you, and I want to thank you for correcting that bad link. I am much obliged.

I suppose I ought to offer an excuse for my behavior, it's generally expected, but I think you can already see why I look on this subject with a juandiced eye.

I happen to agree with you that waste heat will eventually become a problem if we fail to keep our population numbers in check, but populations tend to drop as nations industrialize. I don't know why this happens, but it is an easily observed fact.

djolds1 wrote:IMO Global Dimming has been solidly established as human caused. Tested September 12th, 2001. Virtually no jet aircraft over CONUS, and the global dimming effect was reduced. Does appear to be a high atmosphere side effect of jet engine exhaust.

I have serious doubts about the claims made in that BBC piece. The subject is more complicated than a three day absence of jet contrails. Texas is a fair chunk of the United States. Evaporation rates here should have been a good match for the Australian, Israeli and European data.

djolds1 wrote:But the pols could not have done it without high profile scientists screaming "Ragnarok!" as well. IMO men like Hansen have started an avalanche to serve their own egos, ideological hobbyhorses (going back to "Limits of Growth" Malthusianism) and self-aggrandizement. Hundreds to thousands more jumped on the bandwagon to milk it for funds and reassure themselves of their own righteousness. The enterprise of science waits sedately on the lower slopes while the avalanche approaches.

Well, fair enough. Let them's that's guilty pay for their sins, but this kind of mess says nothing ill of real science. Good work is still possible.

Mind you, we in the US are about to go through a kind of political Gotterdammerung. It's hard to say what will come out of it. In the past we have managed to salvage what is best about us, but I'm well and truly worried this time.

Billy Catringer wrote:I apologize for offending you

Gladly accepted.

Billy Catringer wrote:I think you can already see why I look on this subject with a juandiced eye.

With good reason.