A Prediction Regarding Fusion Power

[MSimon]

Ah if it was only that easy. Too bad there is more data than that which supports the claim that we are causing anthropogenic global warming.

I'm sure most scientific people have the basic physics understanding to know the solar radiative trapping of GHG gases in the atmosphere. Without it, according to NOAA, the planet average temp would be 0F instead of 57F, and we are changing the composition of the atmosphere.

Latest report:
http://www.unep.org/compendium2009/PDF/ ... um2009.pdf

The March synthesis report:
http://en.cop15.dk/files/pdf/iaru_synth ... t_2009.pdf

Water vapor my man. CO2 is insignificant. Considering that many of its absorption bands over lap WV bands. i.e. CO2 has no effect in WV bands.

And then there is the problem of prediction. The models say that a certain volume in the upper atmosphere should be getting hotter if CO2 is driving climate. Well the effect predicted is conspicuously missing. No explanation yet. I'm sure we will get one REAL SOON now.

And if that were not bad enough the warming from 1980 to 2005 has not been corrected for the PDO.

On top of that CO2 is rising and temperatures have at minimum stalled if not declined. For 8 or 10 years. Something in the climate system is strong enough to over ride CO2.

And what does the top IPCC guy say? Cooling until 2020. And NO ONE KNOWS WHY. Well except for the negative PDO. It used to be nothing was stronger than CO2. Uh. Oh. Maybe there are holes in our understanding.

Now get this. The PDO has been known since 1997 and has only been included in SOME models since 2008. Probably simple oversight.

On top of that neither the starting data (initial conditions) nor the models meet Nyquist criteria.

Once we get computers that are 1e6 to 1e8 as powerful as the ones we are using we may get some where. If we can get 1E6 or 1E8 as many sampled points sampled 10X as accurately as the ones we currently have. And 100X as frequently.

Other than those few minor problems the whole project is gilt edged as the Brits like to say.

BTW the discredited graph "The Hockey Stick" was at one time the center piece of climate alarmism. And now with all the data the durn thing is going the wrong way. And how is that possible when the original researchers have all the data? And had it from the start.

Well all a bloke can say is that it is suspicious.

I have lots more but that should be enough to keep you busy for a couple of hours.

Did I mention that the modelers admit they don't have a good handle on clouds. Or UV? A 1% change in cloud cover (say from 43% to 44%) would swamp CO2.

But I do love men of faith. I have a religion I'd like to sell you. Cheap.

[alexjrgreen]

And then there is the problem of prediction. The models say that a certain volume in the upper atmosphere should be getting hotter if CO2 is driving climate. Well the effect predicted is conspicuously missing. No explanation yet. I'm sure we will get one REAL SOON now.

And if that were not bad enough the warming from 1980 to 2005 has not been corrected for the PDO.

The models are a distraction.

ENVIRONMENT: Glacial Meltdown Speeding Up

[MSimon]

And then there is the problem of prediction. The models say that a certain volume in the upper atmosphere should be getting hotter if CO2 is driving climate. Well the effect predicted is conspicuously missing. No explanation yet. I'm sure we will get one REAL SOON now.

And if that were not bad enough the warming from 1980 to 2005 has not been corrected for the PDO.

The models are a distraction.

ENVIRONMENT: Glacial Meltdown Speeding Up

Of course they are a distraction. During the MWP when it was - ta da - warmer - and people were farming in villages that are now under ice. The glaciers survived. And they also survived the Roman era (about 500 years long) when it was even warmer than the MWP.

Forty years of data is not very much in terms of climate history.

And it still does not explain the cooking of the hockey stick books. Do you suppose warmist believers are not to be trusted with science?

It seems a leading UK scientist has to explain how they came to disregard a lot of the data or resign.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/29/l ... or-resign/

Now the fact that so many warmist "scientists" will not give up their data and code casts doubt on the whole warmist enterprise.

Oh, yeah. Is the shrinkage of the depth of the glaciers caused by heat? Or lack of precipitation? Because the weight of the ice naturally causes glaciers to extrude.

And if as the solar scientists predict we are in for 40 or 50 years of cooling maybe we are preparing for the wrong thing. Crippling industry and fuel production just when we need it to fend off the cold may not be the most brilliant idea.

[alexjrgreen]

And then there is the problem of prediction. The models say that a certain volume in the upper atmosphere should be getting hotter if CO2 is driving climate. Well the effect predicted is conspicuously missing. No explanation yet. I'm sure we will get one REAL SOON now.

And if that were not bad enough the warming from 1980 to 2005 has not been corrected for the PDO.

The models are a distraction.

ENVIRONMENT: Glacial Meltdown Speeding Up

Of course they are a distraction. During the MWP when it was - ta da - warmer - and people were farming in villages that are now under ice. The glaciers survived. And they also survived the Roman era (about 500 years long) when it was even warmer than the MWP.

For several thousand years the earth has been warming up as we came out of the last ice age. During all that time temperatures have gone up and down but the trend has been upwards.

Eventually you reach a tipping point where the ice collapses and sea levels rise.

It doesn't matter whether you think that humans have contributed to the warming or not. Public policy needs to engage with the consequences.

[MSimon]

The models are a distraction.

ENVIRONMENT: Glacial Meltdown Speeding Up

Of course they are a distraction. During the MWP when it was - ta da - warmer - and people were farming in villages that are now under ice. The glaciers survived. And they also survived the Roman era (about 500 years long) when it was even warmer than the MWP.

For several thousand years the earth has been warming up as we came out of the last ice age. During all that time temperatures have gone up and down but the trend has been upwards.

Eventually you reach a tipping point where the ice collapses and sea levels rise.

It doesn't matter whether you think that humans have contributed to the warming or not. Public policy needs to engage with the consequences.

OK. That is a fair cop. Now what do you propose assuming CO2 is not the cause and we are not in for an extended (in human terms) cooling?

i.e. suppose it is all natural and will continue at the natural rate. Now what?

BTW I don't think we need get any where close to excited until the under ice Viking villages are uncovered. And we are some ways from that.

[alexjrgreen]

OK. That is a fair cop. Now what do you propose assuming CO2 is not the cause and we are not in for an extended (in human terms) cooling?

i.e. suppose it is all natural and will continue at the natural rate. Now what?

BTW I don't think we need get any where close to excited until the under ice Viking villages are uncovered. And we are some ways from that.

It's notoriously difficult to predict exactly when a collapse would occur, so your confidence may be misplaced. At some point a rise in temperature would trigger the (possibly sudden) release of methane from the permafrost and clathrates under the ocean.

For planning purposes I would be expecting a best case scenario of a 1 metre rise in sea level within fifty years and planning for a worst case scenario (over a century or two) of a 12 metre rise based on a complete melt of West Antarctica and Greenland.

On that basis we need to build new population centres on higher ground and encourage people to move there.

[flying_eagle]

MSimon,

I enjoy a good debate as any other. However, it would be a waste of time in this case. You are just pulling examples of just a few areas that the climate change deniers use. Some of them like to also quote from the Heartland institute, a right wing propaganda machine. You even have international scientists and directors basically stating the U.S. is climate illiterate. http://www.reuters.com/article/environm ... 04&sp=true

Since you mentioned another GHG, I'm glad you recognize GHG role.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

If we put CO2 into the atmosphere it will increase the radiative heating and that extra heat will cause more water vapor and more heating.
But more importantly other natural carbon sources can come into play.
Permafrost can release methane and CO2, marine clathrates are another source. All indications are these will also create a forcing on the climate.

This is no conspiracy. This is the reality of what is happening to us.
The above director was correct about other critical issue, Greenland.
We have to solve this problem. It is critical and time is running out before we cross tipping points that we will not be able to stop.

There are thousands of research papers that point the way toward these conclusions. They are peer reviewed and many correlate to each other and this synthesis is now an international body of scientific knowledge.

I am trying to understand why the fanatical denial of the role of CO2 and other GHG. It seems like people who deny this have some other motive for doing so. Of course the obvious is perhaps they work for a fossil fuel industry. What ever the reason, they will find themselves on the minority and in fact a hindrance to solving a problem that is the most critical to human survival.

[alexjrgreen]

Water vapor my man. CO2 is insignificant. Considering that many of its absorption bands over lap WV bands. i.e. CO2 has no effect in WV bands.

The climatic effects of water vapour

[MSimon]

Well FE,

I guess I don't have to listen to you because all you will do is quote from the left wing propaganda machine watermelons.

[MSimon]

Water vapor my man. CO2 is insignificant. Considering that many of its absorption bands over lap WV bands. i.e. CO2 has no effect in WV bands.

The climatic effects of water vapour

Cute Alex,

I got a Not Found.

[alexjrgreen]

Water vapor my man. CO2 is insignificant. Considering that many of its absorption bands over lap WV bands. i.e. CO2 has no effect in WV bands.

The climatic effects of water vapour

Cute Alex,

I got a Not Found.

Copy/paste error. Try now.

[flying_eagle]

Well FE,

I guess I don't have to listen to you because all you will do is quote from the left wing propaganda machine watermelons.

This is about science, however the motives behind why people pick a position is really beside the point.

Let's look at it this way. If you are right and CO2 isn't a problem, then nothing will happen. You have nothing to worry about and therefore should be content. However, if you are wrong and CO2 is a problem, then if we go your route, we all are toast. So, the prudent thing to do and what the UN effort is about is to solve a problem the scientists are telling us we need to do.

My agenda, is with the science, not some political group who call themselves conservative, embrace conservative Christian values and God, but then deny they have any ability to destroy Eden so to speak.
I believe this to be a minority even in that party as Christians apparently do support protecting creation: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... &Issue_id=

Of course MSimon, I'm not putting you in that category. I'm sure you are above all that. I wonder what chose you to go against the scientific consensus and international effort?

[MSimon]

Well FE,

I guess I don't have to listen to you because all you will do is quote from the left wing propaganda machine watermelons.

This is about science, however the motives behind why people pick an underdog position is really beside the point.

Let's look at it this way. If you are right and CO2 isn't a problem, then nothing will happen. You have nothing to worry about and therefore should be content. However, if you are wrong and CO2 is a problem, then if we go your route, we all are toast. So, the prudent thing to do and what the UN effort is about is to solve a problem the scientists are telling us we need to do.

My agenda, is with the science, not some political group who call themselves conservative, embrace conservative Christian values and God, but then deny they have any ability to destroy Eden so to speak.
I believe this to be a minority even in that party as Christians apparently do support protecting creation: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... &Issue_id=

Of course MSimon, I'm not putting you in that catagory. I'm sure you are above all that.

Ah. But suppose we cripple our economy and it is not necessary?

There are costs and risks to any policy.

Since even the IPCC says warming will not resume until 2020 why not just let our economy grow, produce, and invent until then and then make a decision based on the better technology available in 2020 (or if the solar guys are right 2040). What is the rush?

BTW I'm not a Christian saver. I'm a Jewish investor.

If your interest is science why critique my sources and not my arguments. You doing so was a cheap shot and I responded in kind.

So let us start with Nyquist. What is your take?

[flying_eagle]

Agreed, perhaps a bit of a cheap shot. But, many religions are taking up the cause: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... ub=SciTech

Yes, that is the fear, that the economy will be crippled. Yet, it is important to take a smaller hit now, than to risk, economic collapse later. The point here is that 20 years ago we had the time to convert, but we didn't , we have used up almost all margins to fix the problem.

If we continue on a BAU emission rate which also seems to be accelerating, then beyond 2015, it will be too late to stop a worldwide catastrophe as a critical tipping point, Greenland's stability, will become the harbinger of our destruction. It is not the science of GHG and climate change that is in question now. It is how sensitive is the climate to GHG forcings and we are finding out it is more sensitive than earlier predictions such as IPCC.

I contend, we are running out of time as we cannot let global CO2 average go beyond 405-410 ppm. That tipping point is around 416 to 420 ppm of CO2 (not equivalent CO2 but actual CO2). To avoid this tipping point puts 2015 as the deadline for beginning reductions and carbon neutral by 2025 (this year we have seen a reduction thanks to a recession). The challenge remains the same, all countries have to deal with this as no one will be immune from the effects. Each of us personally are responsible. To delay any longer beyond that date and we will collapse two possible futures into one that would seal our fate. However, that fate is now getting slimmer thanks to the efforts to change course.

The UN understands this problem, the political will over time as more science data come will improve, and my friend, investors like you will see the opportunity to make money in the need for a sustainable future. Instead of high risk, a truly conservative point of view and a win-win for all!

[MSimon]

Agreed, perhaps a bit of a cheap shot. But, many religions are taking up the cause: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... ub=SciTech

Yes, that is the fear, that the economy will be crippled. Yet, it is important to take a smaller hit now, than to risk, economic collapse later. The point here is that 20 years ago we had the time to convert, but we didn't , we have used up almost all margins to fix the problem.

If we continue on a BAU emission rate which also seems to be accelerating, then beyond 2015, it will be too late to stop a worldwide catastrophe as a critical tipping point, Greenland's stability, will become the harbinger of our destruction. It is not the science of GHG and climate change that is in question now. It is how sensitive is the climate to GHG forcings and we are finding out it is more sensitive than earlier predictions such as IPCC.

I contend, we are running out of time as we cannot let global CO2 average go beyond 405-410 ppm. That tipping point is around 416 to 420 ppm of CO2 (not equivalent CO2 but actual CO2). To avoid this tipping point puts 2015 as the deadline for beginning reductions and carbon neutral by 2025 (this year we have seen a reduction thanks to a recession). The challenge remains the same, all countries have to deal with this as no one will be immune from the effects. Each of us personally are responsible. To delay any longer beyond that date and we will collapse two possible futures into one that would seal our fate. However, that fate is now getting slimmer thanks to the efforts to change course.

The UN understands this problem, the political will over time as more science data come will improve, and my friend, investors like you will see the opportunity to make money in the need for a sustainable future. Instead of high risk, a truly conservative point of view and a win-win for all!

But the historical record over geologic time scales shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature. i.e. we have had a cool earth at 2,000 ppm and a warm earth at 1,000 ppm and cool at 500 ppm.

And without China and India on board there is nothing the US can do. China will have 2X the US CO2 output by 2020. And that does not even get India into the mix.

The 400 to 450 ppm number you quote is from computer models. Why do you think the models (most of which leave out the PDO - known sice 1997) have predictive ability. None predicted the 8 to 10 year stall we have seen so far. So let me start again: where do you stand on Nyquist?