Eat that GW believers!

[Jccarlton]

...you would pursue every way to make electricity less expensive so that people would use it instead of oil or gas to heat their homes.

Minor technical niggle: Using oil or gas in a furnace directly is vastly more carbon-efficient than using electricity generated at 40% thermal efficiency from a coal plant.

Now if your electricity is from hydro or nuclear it's another story, of course... except that hydro is tapped out and nuclear is regulated into the ground, so if demand goes up, what gets built?

An average furnace today will get 90% or better heat transfer into the water. My point was that you would pursue game changing technologies like polywell rather than just manipulating the status quo as a rent seeking opportunity.

[93143]

An average furnace today will get 90% or better heat transfer into the water.

Exactly.

My point was that you would pursue game changing technologies like polywell rather than just manipulating the status quo as a rent seeking opportunity.

I'm not arguing your point; I'm just trying to help clarify a misconception.

[rcain]

I'm not sure whether anyone has posted this before....

http://www.openletter-globalwarming.inf ... etter.html

... perhaps nearest thing we have to an emerging scientific consensus.

[UncleMatt]

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/11 ... .html#more

GCP Carbon Budget Finds Global Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions Rose 2% in 2008 Despite Global Financial Crisis; Natural Sinks Not Keeping Pace With Increasing Emissions

[Jccarlton]

I'm not sure whether anyone has posted this before....

http://www.openletter-globalwarming.inf ... etter.html

... perhaps nearest thing we have to an emerging scientific consensus.

Appeals to irrelevant authority does not trump data. In the Sixteenth Century the scientific consensus was that the earth was the center of the universe. That did not mean that the consensus was correct.

[Jccarlton]

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/11 ... .html#more

GCP Carbon Budget Finds Global Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions Rose 2% in 2008 Despite Global Financial Crisis; Natural Sinks Not Keeping Pace With Increasing Emissions

Wow, a green advocacy group has a study, which surprise reflects their point of view. Now if it had anything that approached real data that they would present for critical review, with notes and connections to raw data and sources, that would be a surprise. Of course they believe in electric cars which makes them more than a little crazy anyway.

[AcesHigh]

for a scientific forum, this place is sadly too much right-wing republican to believe.

i guess most of you guys are creationists too?

[Jccarlton]

for a scientific forum, this place is sadly too much right-wing republican to believe.

i guess most of you guys are creationists too?

Funny, up until Darwin and Wallace, creationism was a scientific consensus. I'm not sure what being a republican or democrat has to do with science and technology. I have known many great scientists and engineers from all over the political spectrum. In fact I would have to say the of the best scientists or engineers that I have known, the majority were more conservative than not.

[IntLibber]

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/11 ... .html#more

GCP Carbon Budget Finds Global Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions Rose 2% in 2008 Despite Global Financial Crisis; Natural Sinks Not Keeping Pace With Increasing Emissions

Wow, a green advocacy group has a study, which surprise reflects their point of view. Now if it had anything that approached real data that they would present for critical review, with notes and connections to raw data and sources, that would be a surprise. Of course they believe in electric cars which makes them more than a little crazy anyway.

Yeah, esp given this study is entirely false. The sinks are keeping up fully with emissions.

[IntLibber]

for a scientific forum, this place is sadly too much right-wing republican to believe.

i guess most of you guys are creationists too?

Way to go in making multiple unsupported and outlandishly absurd assumptions to ad hominem people in just two sentences.

A) being anti-Obama, anti-AGW does not make one a Republican. The narrow mindedness of your political field of view reminds me of those 57,000 democrats who voted for David Duke for president in the 1994 presidential primaries (vs zero Republicans). See? Two can play that game, except I did it with actual facts... I happen to be a Libertarian, which no, isn't more right wing than a republican, and no, isn't just a crazy wing of Randite Objectivist Republicans (Ayn Rand didn't like Libertarians), and no, Libertarians are not conservatives, neocons, or paleocons. Libertarians are what was once called a liberal, before the New York Liberal party was infiltrated and coopted by socialists who realized they'd never get elected on the Socialist banner, becoming the Liberal Wing of the Democratics Party.

B) being pro-evolution evidently does not exempt some people from being opinionated, unscientific, judgemental, faith-driven atheist. Yes, I said faith-driven atheist. I am an agnostic who recognises atheism is a religion as much as any theology because it assumes facts not in evidence, claims correlation equals causation, and is filled with obnoxious, opinionated, pushy arrogant jerks who rant their adherence to their ism as much as any bomb vesting mullah. There are also many people who insist that they are atheists when in fact they are Church of Global Warming zealots.

C) Given that evolution was THE FIRST truly scientific theory of creation, it is unfortunately in the default position of having to debate its position against creationists who may not understand, never mind accept, scientific principles, not to mention basic rules of debating and logical fallacies of argumentation. Too bad, suck it up. You also have to defend it against Gaia Theory kooks.

[rcain]

I'm not sure whether anyone has posted this before....

http://www.openletter-globalwarming.inf ... etter.html

... perhaps nearest thing we have to an emerging scientific consensus.

Appeals to irrelevant authority does not trump data. In the Sixteenth Century the scientific consensus was that the earth was the center of the universe. That did not mean that the consensus was correct.

..evidently you did not bother read the links - entitled 'a gaggle is not a consensus'. the American Physical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Nature - irrelevant? i'm sure they will be just as interested in your own 'irrelevant' opinion.

[Jccarlton]

I'm not sure whether anyone has posted this before....

http://www.openletter-globalwarming.inf ... etter.html

... perhaps nearest thing we have to an emerging scientific consensus.

Appeals to irrelevant authority does not trump data. In the Sixteenth Century the scientific consensus was that the earth was the center of the universe. That did not mean that the consensus was correct.

..evidently you did not bother read the links - entitled 'a gaggle is not a consensus'. the American Physical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Nature - irrelevant? i'm sure they will be just as interested in your own 'irrelevant' opinion.

Oops, I read the black part and not the blue part. But an appeal to authority is always irrelevant unless the authority is dealing with facts. That goes for these peopel in the APS and AAAS that I agree with just like it does with the AGW crowd. it's sort of like the tobacco industry's ad campaigns in the past with doctors in them.

[UncleMatt]

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/11 ... .html#more

GCP Carbon Budget Finds Global Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions Rose 2% in 2008 Despite Global Financial Crisis; Natural Sinks Not Keeping Pace With Increasing Emissions

Wow, a green advocacy group has a study, which surprise reflects their point of view. Now if it had anything that approached real data that they would present for critical review, with notes and connections to raw data and sources, that would be a surprise. Of course they believe in electric cars which makes them more than a little crazy anyway.

Yeah, esp given this study is entirely false. The sinks are keeping up fully with emissions.

Please provide a source for your claim

[UncleMatt]

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/11 ... .html#more

GCP Carbon Budget Finds Global Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions Rose 2% in 2008 Despite Global Financial Crisis; Natural Sinks Not Keeping Pace With Increasing Emissions

Wow, a green advocacy group has a study, which surprise reflects their point of view. Now if it had anything that approached real data that they would present for critical review, with notes and connections to raw data and sources, that would be a surprise. Of course they believe in electric cars which makes them more than a little crazy anyway.

So instead of responding to the data, you just decide that stating this study simply MUST be false is supposed to carry any weight? Address the data, its available online. This issue isn't about your politics, its about the data. Refute the data if you can, otherwise your post represents an opinion, and nothing more.

[seedload]

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/11 ... .html#more

GCP Carbon Budget Finds Global Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions Rose 2% in 2008 Despite Global Financial Crisis; Natural Sinks Not Keeping Pace With Increasing Emissions

I am not sure why this is important. For people keeping up, I don't think this is the real debate. I believe that most people here would agree with the following.

1) CO2 levels are going up due to man's emmisions.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
3) It is getting warmer.

Like I expressed before, providing more supporting evidence for 1 doesn't really change the debate. Either does providing more supporting evidence for 2 or 3 by themselves. When you talked earlier about the mounting evidence, you are talking about studies that support each of these statements independently. But again, that is not the debate. These things are pretty much agreed on except maybe in magnitude.

The real debate is whether 1 or 2 have anything to do with 3. That is the issue. I asked earlier for you to help me find studies that address this - the causal relationship. This is the issue at hand.

Specifically, it is very important to the AGW doomsday argument that there be positive feedbacks in nature that will increase the warming predicted by added CO2. Climate sensitivity is a HUGE question. That is what needs to be studied.

The best way to study feedbacks is to actually attempt to measure them. To do this, a good way might be to directly measure LW+SW emmisions in relationship to actual temperature change and compare the data to the feedbacks used in climate models. We have flown some expensive satellites for just this purpose - to measure fluxes. There are a few scientists actually looking at observed fluxes in relationship to temperature change.

It seems logical that these results would be important to the argument - no?

For example - the respected climate scientist, Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, has publishing recent work that shows an opposing view on feedbacks based on satellite observations.

This is a biography of the man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

This is a presentation he gave regarding, among other things, his publication in Geophysical Research Letters. Start reading at page 35 if you want to skip what you would probably consider denier hype.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress. ... lk-pdf.pdf

This is the actual article:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and ... L-2009.pdf

You might also want to visit the blog of Dr. Roy Spencer, who is doing similar work and reaching similar conclusions. Actually, he blogs about Lindzen's work and his conclusions are quite revealing about the candor of the man who has been otherwised demonized by AGW people. He is also studying fluxes using CERES satellite data that shows similar results.

Here is his blog,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Without nailing down feedbacks and understanding them better, this argument moves no further. We can piss on each other as long as we want. This is about cause and feedbacks. Continuing to site papers or data that say it is getting warmer doesn't accomplish much (especially since it isn't - most recently). Continuing to site papers or data that say that CO2 is going up doesn't do much.

Actually showing cause and figuring out feedbacks is the issue at hand. Don't you agree?

Regards