Global Warming Concensus Broken

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Civilization runs on energy. The lower the cost of energy the more civilization. What exactly do people who want intermittent energy sources at 3X the cost of current steady sources have against civilization?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

Billy Catringer wrote:The basic claim of the AGW myth is that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" are "trapping heat" within the Earth's atmosphere. This claim is based upon research conducted back in the nineteenth century and, despite all claims to the contrary, has yet to be verified. It has not been verified because it cannot be verified. At atmospheric pressures here on Earth, these gases are refrigerants. Refrigerants are not insulators. If anything, increased concentrations in "greenhouse gases" would improve convection, not insulate the planet.

Stop and think about it. The Earth is already surrounded by the best insulator known, vacuum, and it cannot and never has prevented the planetary atmsophere from radiating heat away. Heat is damnably hard to hang on to. The claims made about anthropogenic global warming are silly from the git-go.
An igloo made of snow will keep you warm, but the evaporation of sweat on your skin will cool you down.

For the Earth to be in thermal balance it must re-radiate the heat it receives from the Sun, plus a bit more to compensate for any generated by internal friction and radioactive decay.
Ars artis est celare artem.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

alexjrgreen wrote:In the absence of any adequate model of long term temperature, a rational proposal might be "stop where we are", or perhaps "back up a little".
I disagree with invoking the precautionary principle every time a doomsday theory is proposed without adequate proof. When "stop where we are" or "back up a little" mean decreased standards of living, reduced economic growth, and starvation and death for millions, I strongly disagree.

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

seedload wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote:In the absence of any adequate model of long term temperature, a rational proposal might be "stop where we are", or perhaps "back up a little".
I disagree with invoking the precautionary principle every time a doomsday theory is proposed without adequate proof. When "stop where we are" or "back up a little" mean decreased standards of living, reduced economic growth, and starvation and death for millions, I strongly disagree.
Bravo!!

======

How about full speed ahead to make the transition from fossil fuels faster?

More flow.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

seedload wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote:In the absence of any adequate model of long term temperature, a rational proposal might be "stop where we are", or perhaps "back up a little".
I disagree with invoking the precautionary principle every time a doomsday theory is proposed without adequate proof. When "stop where we are" or "back up a little" mean decreased standards of living, reduced economic growth, and starvation and death for millions, I strongly disagree.
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.

We generate more waste heat today per person than our ancestors did. When humans were few, the effect on the world's thermal balance was small, although even that may have been enough to avert another ice age. Now that our population is 7 billion and rising, the amount of waste heat we generate is becoming a significant effect. Whether or not CO2 has anything to do with global temperature, waste heat certainly does.

There are feedback mechanisms, of course, which tend to bring the Earth's temperature back in line. But if the geological record is any kind of guide, testing their limits would potentially put billions of human lives at risk.
Ars artis est celare artem.

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Yet "decreased standards of living, reduced economic growth, and starvation and death for millions" would also be the result of "full speed ahead".
Yes. Of course. More electricity . More food production (through mechanized agriculture). More and faster transport. Yep. Such a policy is bound to kill Millions. It is a wonder I hadn't noticed it before.

So what we need to do is vastly curtail oil and electrical production in the world so more can live. I propose Alex that you call for a 99% reduction of oil and coal use in your country within a week so that living standards in your country will rise faster and millions of lives can be saved.

But there is no need to wait. Do it voluntarily and show the rest of us how it can be done. Come to Chicago (I won't count your plane trip and your first week in the city against you) and show us how to live through the winters here without coal, oil, or electricity. No taking public transport either. That runs on oil. No using water out of the tap. That uses electricity. No buying food from stores: oil. No flush toilets. (dig a hole). No buying clothes from stores. No second hand clothes either. All made with electrical power. You can't use anything with aluminum. - Electricity. No medicines, hospitals, or doctors - all dependent on coal or oil.

Hell Alex, you won't even be able to use money. It is produced on electrically run printing presses or for coins electrically run stamping machines.

==

Marcus Aurelius: "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

Evidently the problem of political insanity is not new to our time.

==

BTW Alex, I tried all the stuff you are proposing and lived for a year or two with out much civilizational inputs. I lived in a tipi. I was in Northern Calif where the winters are fairly mild. - It sucks. I'll take the fruits of civilization any day. And because I am not selfish or into mass murder I'd like to extend the benefits of civilization to every one on the planet who wants them.

People like you say we have discovered no big new fields of oil in the last 30 years. Except we have. We can now get much more oil out of known fields. It is like finding as much oil as has already been "discovered".

There is enough oil and coal to make our transition from those resources comfortable. Why not make every one on the planet comfortable during the transition? It is the humanitarian thing to do.

Some how I could never be a Stalinist: "One murder is a tragedy, a million is a statistic."
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

MSimon wrote:People like you say we have discovered no big new fields of oil in the last 30 years.
I'd be somewhat surprised if you knew anyone else like me. I don't recall saying any such thing.

I've got nothing against energy use (why would I be interested in Polywell if I did), as long as we can maintain the Earth's energy balance.
Ars artis est celare artem.

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

alexjrgreen wrote:
MSimon wrote:People like you say we have discovered no big new fields of oil in the last 30 years.
I'd be somewhat surprised if you knew anyone else like me. I don't recall saying any such thing.

I've got nothing against energy use (why would I be interested in Polywell if I did), as long as we can maintain the Earth's energy balance.
But Alex,

Polywell will destroy the current balance. Fire is natural (even if the sources are somewhat contrived) but no way are there vast processes on earth turning Deuterium or B11 into energy and helium waste. And the neutron flux? Well there hasn't been a natural source of such intensity since the last natural fission reactor stopped working.

Fission on earth - natural.

Fusion on earth - not natural.

How do you expect to maintain the balance with an unnatural source of energy?

BTW when was the last time things were in balance? I was not aware that there was such a time. In fact the solar flux imposes an unbalanced regime on earth. Ice ages, warm periods, fluctuations, flows. I don't see balance there. The very rotation and angle of the earth to the sun imposes a well known short cycle imbalance. In unscientific shorthand they are called day and night or for the somewhat longer period seasons.

Nature is not balance: it is flow. This is easily seen in predator/prey cycles. There is no balance. Which is why there are cycles.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

MSimon wrote:Fusion on earth - not natural.

How do you expect to maintain the balance with an unnatural source of energy?
Exactly. Billy Catringer mentioned one of the possibilities.
MSimon wrote:BTW when was the last time things were in balance? I was not aware that there was such a time. In fact the solar flux imposes an unbalanced regime on earth. Ice ages, warm periods, fluctuations, flows. I don't see balance there. The very rotation and angle of the earth to the sun imposes a well known short cycle imbalance. In unscientific shorthand they are called day and night or for the somewhat longer period seasons.

Nature is not balance: it is flow. This is easily seen in predator/prey cycles. There is no balance. Which is why there are cycles.
Natural flux isn't a reason to ignore basic Health and Safety. Make sure you have a fire extinguisher to hand.
Ars artis est celare artem.

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Make sure you have a fire extinguisher to hand.
OK. Electricity for every one now! That will extinguish a lot of fires.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Billy Catringer
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Post by Billy Catringer »

alexjrgreen wrote:An igloo made of snow will keep you warm, but the evaporation of sweat on your skin will cool you down.

Well, let's see. Ice is a solid and when it is in the form of snow it is a nice fluffy accumulation of snowflakes. In this form water is become an insulator by by limiting convection with what is commonly know as 'dead air' space. In other words, the air is unable to set up a convection cycle in those spaces.

And, yes, sweat will cool me or anyone else off, because it is then a liquid capable of evaporating and carrying off heat by convection. If I were to augment my perspiration by spraying a little alcohol onto my skin, I would cool off even faster because the alcohol would help the perspiration to evaporate even faster.
alexjrgreen wrote:For the Earth to be in thermal balance it must re-radiate the heat it receives from the Sun, plus a bit more to compensate for any generated by internal friction and radioactive decay.

All very true. Now, what do refrigerants do? They increase the rate of convection. They do NOT insulate or retard the transfer of heat. Refrigerants like carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, the freons, gasoline, and a large number of other compounds enhance convection. Convection is far more efficient at transferring heat than is radiation.

How then can anyone swallow the politically motivated claims about "greenhouse gases"? There is no science to back these claims.

Billy Catringer
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Post by Billy Catringer »

alexjrgreen wrote: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.

Assumes facts not in evidence.
alexjrgreen wrote:We generate more waste heat today per person than our ancestors did.

There can be no doubt about this.
alexjrgreen wrote:When humans were few, the effect on the world's thermal balance was small, although even that may have been enough to avert another ice age.

A very large assumption about facts not in evidence.
alexjrgreen wrote:Now that our population is 7 billion and rising, the amount of waste heat we generate is becoming a significant effect.
Significant effects in urban settings only. Five miles outside urban zones, air temperatures drop precipitously and there are no indications that waste heat is having any permanent effects on the upper levels of our atmosphere. As far as anyone can tell, heat from the heat island effect is radiated away into space, just as the heat over deserts is radiated into space. Further, most of the heat island effect arises from solar heating of pavements and buildings. Also, most of the waste heat comes from the use of electricity, not the combustion of fuels in automobiles, even though we DO burn such fuels in a profligate manner.

Your argument here says that not even a device such as a Bussard Fusion Reactor would save us from our plight. There is no way for us to use energy without generating waste heat. This means that we need to curb our population. Are you willing to volunteer for that job?
alexjrgreen wrote:Whether or not CO2 has anything to do with global temperature, waste heat certainly does.

There is no evidence to support the claims about refrigerants raising atmospheric temperatures because they cannot do such a thing.
alexjrgreen wrote:There are feedback mechanisms, of course, which tend to bring the Earth's temperature back in line. But if the geological record is any kind of guide, testing their limits would potentially put billions of human lives at risk.

War was and still is the most likely thing to cause us serious grief. I would say that some extra-virulent form of influenza would be the next most likely. Geology suggests that the real climatological disaster will almost certainly come in the form of an ice age. Living is all about dealing with risk. Risk is ever present. It behooves us then, to do a good job of evaluating risks and acting on the most probable ones while ignoring politically motivated panic mongering.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

Billy Catringer wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote: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.

Assumes facts not in evidence.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090205/tw ... 02b49.html
Ars artis est celare artem.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

Billy Catringer wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote:When humans were few, the effect on the world's thermal balance was small, although even that may have been enough to avert another ice age.

A very large assumption about facts not in evidence.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... r-was.html
Ars artis est celare artem.

Billy Catringer
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Post by Billy Catringer »

alexjrgreen wrote:
Billy Catringer wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote: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.

Assumes facts not in evidence.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090205/tw ... 02b49.html

I infer that you are claiming that this particular drought is the product of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Where is your evidence that this is a valid claim? Every spot on Earth suffers a drought from time to time. So what? Show me the link between this drought and human action.

And, I should think, you would be delighted over the news of such a drought. After all, it will likely reduce the numbers of humans on the planet is a place where by all accounts, there are too many already. Mind you, I am repeating what the Chinese Government assumes as a major social policy.

Post Reply