Manipulation

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:26 pm

Josh Cryer wrote:I have my problem with the greens, of course. I'm just noting the current political (and economic) reality. Frankly, I would hate to live next to a windfarm (there's a good video circling YouTube about the noise they make). One windmill would probably be fine. But that said, the paper is likely correct.

Here's another paper: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/7373/2 ... -2008.html

I think I know who's trying to manipulate me and it ain't the scientists.


Josh,

The Forbush events may or may not be useful. My understanding is that it depends on cosmic ray energies. I can't remember if it was those above 1 GeV or above 10 GeV that were significant. (1 GeV seems to be the right number)

Climate Audit had a good discussion of this.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1079

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3218

So a mere decrease in cosmic rays does not tell the whole story or even a significant story. You have to look at energies.

I found this interesting:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2470

Since the solar wind magnetic field and solar activity have been
either steady or declining of late, the paper raises the possibility
that the interstellar density of cosmic rays have declined over time.
When discussing solar modulation of cosmic rays it is usually assumed
that all the changes are due to the sun. Maybe that assumption should
be re-considered? If so, we have just opened a new can of worms. What
a wonderful time to live in.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

MirariNefas
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:57 am

Postby MirariNefas » Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:02 pm

MSimon wrote:The place for windfarms is on farms in the upper Mid-West.

So far there is no proof that soy beans are adversely affected by wind turbine noise.


In 2015... the Geat Soybean Blight strikes... crops mysteriously fail, and nobody knows why. One scientist, studying the effects of rock music on beans in the lab, learns the truth. He finds himself in the middle of a conspiracy, hounded by agritech goons who use the soybean blight to extract ever higher prices and subsidies, and he fights his way to the truth only to discover that the conspiracy goes all the way to the top, with the President a shareholder in both wind, agritech, and rock n' roll companies...

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Postby djolds1 » Sat Dec 20, 2008 3:05 am

MirariNefas wrote:In 2015... the Geat Soybean Blight strikes... crops mysteriously fail, and nobody knows why. One scientist, studying the effects of rock music on beans in the lab, learns the truth. He finds himself in the middle of a conspiracy, hounded by agritech goons who use the soybean blight to extract ever higher prices and subsidies, and he fights his way to the truth only to discover that the conspiracy goes all the way to the top, with the President a shareholder in both wind, agritech, and rock n' roll companies...

No no. 21 December 2012, the world ends.
Vae Victis

Nanos
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire, UK
Contact:

Postby Nanos » Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:44 am

One might be able to reduce the negative effects if you go for Vertical Axis Wind Turbines, and possibly ones in fully enclosed nacelles, similar in some ways to Persian windmills.

I'd still like to know can you fit them underground at the top of mountain ridges to catch the air going through the mountain.

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sat Dec 20, 2008 2:21 pm

Nanos wrote:One might be able to reduce the negative effects if you go for Vertical Axis Wind Turbines, and possibly ones in fully enclosed nacelles, similar in some ways to Persian windmills.

I'd still like to know can you fit them underground at the top of mountain ridges to catch the air going through the mountain.


I have done some further research on this and what I found is that the noise is dependent on blade design.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... to-be.html

Have a look at the contrarian and alternate view videos and compare them to the bad turbines.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Postby Josh Cryer » Sat Dec 20, 2008 6:22 pm

MSimon, unfortunately those links don't discuss the paper in question and it seems again you haven't read the links I've given. I've heard the PDO objections and the best they can come up with are cooked graphs.

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sat Dec 20, 2008 10:49 pm

Josh Cryer wrote:MSimon, unfortunately those links don't discuss the paper in question and it seems again you haven't read the links I've given. I've heard the PDO objections and the best they can come up with are cooked graphs.


Josh,

The IPCC invokes the PDO to explain the current cooling trend. Are you telling me the consensus is breaking down? Say it isn't so.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby tomclarke » Mon Dec 22, 2008 9:03 am

Simon -

I have come to the conclusion that the whole GW debate suffers from partial truths and misrepresentations.

Specifically in this case can you tell me which page of the IPCC report discusses PDO, so we can see what precisely are their claims?

I recently posted a link to an intereresting post-IPCC-report document from one of the participants reflecting on the process, and what was good and bd (it also referenced the report). One issue is that some climate models are trying to predict long-term weather (e.g. how hot or cold will a specific part of the world be). Since the best climate models are also used for weather forecast this is understandable - BUT YOU MUST NOT CONFLATE THE TWO ISSUES

Weather forecasting is inherently unreliable, whereas long-ter,m (decades) climate much more reliable, because the noise gets avergaed out.

Best wishes, Tom

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Mon Dec 22, 2008 11:54 am

Tom,

You are correct. The PDO - discovered in 1997 - has yet to make it in to an official IPCC report. I was misinformed.

If you follow this from 20 May 2008:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/col ... eb8fa9081a

It may explain why I got it wrong. I will give a few pertinent quotes.

You may have heard earlier this month that global warming is now likely to take break for a decade or more. There will be no more warming until 2015, perhaps later.

Climate scientist Noel Keenlyside, leading a team from Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology, for the first time entered verifiable data on ocean circulation cycles into one of the U. N.'s climate supercomputers, and the machine spit out a projection that there will be no more warming for the foreseeable future.

Of course, Mr. Keenlyside-- long a defender of the man-made global warming theory -- was quick to add that after 2015 (or perhaps 2020), warming would resume with a vengeance.

Climate alarmists the world over were quick to add that they had known all along there would be periods when the Earth's climate would cool even as the overall trend was toward dangerous climate change.

Sorry, but that is just so much backfill.

There may have been the odd global-warming scientist in the past decade who allowed that warming would pause periodically in its otherwise relentless upward march, but he or she was a rarity.

If anything, the opposite is true: Almost no climate scientist who backed the alarmism ever expected warming would take anything like a 10 or 15-year hiatus.


Last year, in its oft-quoted report on global warming, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted a 0.3-degree C rise in temperature in the coming decade -- not a cooling or even just temperature stability.

In its previous report in 2001, the IPCC prominently displaced the so-called temperature "hockey stick" that purported to show temperature pretty much plateauing for the thousand years before 1900, then taking off in the 20th Century in a smooth upward line. No 10-year dips backwards were foreseen.

It is drummed into us, ad nauseum, that the IPCC represents 2,500 scientists who together embrace a "consensus" that man-made global warming is a "scientific fact;" and as recently as last year, they didn't see this cooling coming. So the alarmists can't weasel out of this by claiming they knew all along such anomalies would occur.


According to the U. S. National Climatic Data Center, the average temperature of the global land surface in January 2008 was below the 20th-Century mean for the first time since 1982.

Also in January, Southern Hemisphere sea ice coverage was at its greatest summer level (January is summer in the Southern Hemisphere) in the past 30 years.

Neither the 3,000 temperature buoys that float throughout the world's oceans nor the eight NASA satellites that float above our atmosphere have recorded appreciable warming in the past six to eight years.

Even Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, reluctantly admitted to Reuters in January that there has been no warming so far in the 21st Century.


Now it is that last bit which I bolded which may have confused me.

So we have a notch in the hockey stick. The rise in temps is not as smooth as we have been led to believe. And you know even in a 30 year smoothed average an 8 year bump should be visible.

Now what do you call a model that leaves out known facts and has poor predictive value?

Garbage.

I like this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthc ... edict.html

If the model could accurately forecast other variables besides temperature, such as rainfall, it would be increasingly useful, but climate predictions for a decade ahead would always be to some extent uncertain, he added.


But of course for a century ahead they will be right on the mark.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/04/30/a ... g-applied/

From the PDO data itself, it is just too soon to be able to tell whether the current cool phase is just one of the shorter cycles, or whether it is the beginning of a longer term cycle like we saw back in the 1950’s and 1960’s. It is tempting, when looking at the warming rate cycles, to believe that we’ve just come out of a 60-66 year “Kerr” climate cycle, and are on the cusp of a cool phase like we see for the 1950’s and 1960’s.

But if you look closely at the end of the purple curve for our warming rate cycle, it seems to be about ready to turn back up. Now we do not want to put too much stock in the end values of a series that has been smoothed with HP filtering. So it could still be on a downward trend.

Then, to make it all the more interesting, we have solar cycle 23 lingering on. Considering that also, confidence is higher that we will continue to see a relative respite in the rate of warming and that we’re not likely to see our warming rate cycle jump back to where it was during solar cycles 22-23. But whether we see a full blown interlude between two strong warming trends, like we saw during the 1950’s and 1960’s, remains to be seen.

In other words, as we saw with Easterbrook’s analysis, we can be reasonably confident in projecting at least no further warming for a while. For that to happen, the purple warming rate curve must not only turn back upwards, it must rise into the region of positive values, and continue to rise for several years. If solar cycle 24 turns out to be a weak solar cycle, and there are historical precedents for cycle length suggesting it is likely to be weak, that probably isn’t happening.

I’ll have more on solar cycles 23 and 24 coming up in the next day or so.

So, in summary; probably no net warming for awhile, and maybe a period of extended cooling as in the mid 20th century. It all depends on whether this current PDO shift is a short term or longer term event such as we saw in the mid 20th century.


Today's sunspot number? Zero.

http://spaceweather.com/

This is rather unusual since for the past few cycles (excepting this one) the sunspots from the previous cycle overlapped (although at different latitudes) the sunspots from the current cycle.

Now some of the solar boys - based on various theories predicted the strongest solar cycle ever in August of 2006.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9778

But another group, led by Leif Svalgaard of ETK, a consulting firm in Houston, Texas, US, contends that the upcoming solar cycle will not be very strong because the magnetic fields at the poles are currently weak. That group is calling for the weakest solar cycle in 100 years.


Leif appears to have a better handle on the subject.

And what was I blogging about in May of 2007?

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... lowed.html

"Normally, the conveyor belt moves about 1 meter per second—walking pace," says Hathaway. "That's how it has been since the late 19th century." In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. "We've never seen speeds so low."

According to theory and observation, the speed of the belt foretells the intensity of sunspot activity ~20 years in the future. A slow belt means lower solar activity; a fast belt means stronger activity. The reasons for this are explained in the Science@NASA story Solar Storm Warning.

"The slowdown we see now means that Solar Cycle 25, peaking around the year 2022, could be one of the weakest in centuries," says Hathaway.


And cycle 24 aint doin so hot either.

...the Sporer, Maunder, and Dalton minima coincide with the colder periods of the Little Ice Age, which lasted from about 1450 to 1820. More recently it was discovered that the sunspot number during 1861-1989 shows a remarkable parallelism with the simultaneous variation in northern hemisphere mean temperatures (2). There is an even better correlation with the length of the solar cycle, between years of the highest numbers of sunspots. For example, the temperature anomaly was - 0.4 K in 1890 when the cycle was 11.7 years, but + 0.25 K in 1989 when the cycle was 9.8 years. Some critics of the theory of man-induced global warming have seized on this discovery to criticize the greenhouse gas theory.


You can read more of my thoughts at the Power and Control link.

Of course the folks at Real Climate have dug out some heretofore missing epi-cycles to prove all this solar stuff is errant nonsense. And thankfully for all of us the Great Oz has spoken.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Mon Dec 22, 2008 2:12 pm

I re-wrote my above post adding some humor and other stuff at:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... ormed.html
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 9 guests