Atmospheric Models
Futures traders have a saying I like:
You can't beat the market.
If you get too far ahead of the curve it is not cost effective. Remember the Carter years? There was a big alternative energy push followed by a fizzle.
The idea was right but it was too far ahead of the curve.
You can't beat the market.
If you get too far ahead of the curve it is not cost effective. Remember the Carter years? There was a big alternative energy push followed by a fizzle.
The idea was right but it was too far ahead of the curve.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Yep, Galileo wasn't even right, either--the same tract that got him in trouble (for mocking the Pope's belief that the sun went around the earth) included his opinion that the orbit had to be a perfect circle, and that these ellipse proponents were idiots as well.
Tom.Cuddihy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Faith is the foundation of reason.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Faith is the foundation of reason.
Great thread guys !
While i have no argument that things are getting a little crowded here on planet Earth, the whole global warming thing just strikes me as really good way to get people to use less while paying for more.
Simon, cloud feedback absolutely rapes the climate modeling guys. Its like saying they found out they have been running a circuit with a few capacitors backwards, yet everything was and still is fine.
Same thing with CO2 vs H20 vs Solar
Sadly i have tried to explain the concept of "they dont even know if the clouds negatively or positively feedback" or that "climate science is based on ASSUMPTIONS" to some of my more switched on female friends who care about out planet now that its so envogue, and just get blank faces.
The way people fire up is identical to debunking religion infront of a Christian. Climate Change is now a Secular Religion, and boy is it going to cost us. Just in time for a recession too.
Infinately Consumable Junk Media Overdrive has completely ruined my generations ability to think.
While i have no argument that things are getting a little crowded here on planet Earth, the whole global warming thing just strikes me as really good way to get people to use less while paying for more.
Simon, cloud feedback absolutely rapes the climate modeling guys. Its like saying they found out they have been running a circuit with a few capacitors backwards, yet everything was and still is fine.
Same thing with CO2 vs H20 vs Solar
Sadly i have tried to explain the concept of "they dont even know if the clouds negatively or positively feedback" or that "climate science is based on ASSUMPTIONS" to some of my more switched on female friends who care about out planet now that its so envogue, and just get blank faces.
The way people fire up is identical to debunking religion infront of a Christian. Climate Change is now a Secular Religion, and boy is it going to cost us. Just in time for a recession too.
Infinately Consumable Junk Media Overdrive has completely ruined my generations ability to think.
Purity is Power
You give people too much credit. Ask your average person a technical question with a definite answer (not too tough) and you can see the pain on their faces.Keegan wrote:Infinately Consumable Junk Media Overdrive has completely ruined my generations ability to think.
People want certainty. Confusion is uncomfortable. Those of us who like it (because it ultimately can lead to understanding) are in the minority. A very small minority.
Twas ever thus.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
The Mann analsysis was a real eye-opener for me. Much of it turns out to be based on tree growth analysis -- which for some species is actually more sensitive to CO2 than temperature. So they were actually measuing CO2 levels, not the effect of CO2 levels on temp.
Also, Mann's "hockey stick" says the Medieval Warm Period was signficantly colder than today and the last ten years are the warmest in the last seveal thousand. As Simon points out, people lived in Greenland during the MWP; there is evidence it was significantly warmer than today. There's also considerable evidence that 1934 was the warmest year in the modern historical record.
Also, Mann's "hockey stick" says the Medieval Warm Period was signficantly colder than today and the last ten years are the warmest in the last seveal thousand. As Simon points out, people lived in Greenland during the MWP; there is evidence it was significantly warmer than today. There's also considerable evidence that 1934 was the warmest year in the modern historical record.
Re: Atmospheric Models
There's two drivers here: one, there is a historical correlation between CO2 levels and temp (though whether it is causative, at least at current levels, is debatable), and two, the environmental movement loves this cause as a new rallying point now that pollution has mostly been tamed in the Western world.rj40 wrote:why the climate scientists who think global warming is substantially human induced think their climate models are better than other models that don’t agree.
Pretty powerful for a trace gas.
Jared Diamond's "Collapse" talks a great deal about the Norse in Greenland. They disappeared (died, not emigrated) after about 500 years thriving. They had dairy farms on Greenland. In the same time The Inuit crossed the Canadian Artic, and Maize hortaculture achieved lattitudes of the Iriquoian peoples.TallDave wrote:The Mann analsysis was a real eye-opener for me. Much of it turns out to be based on tree growth analysis -- which for some species is actually more sensitive to CO2 than temperature. So they were actually measuing CO2 levels, not the effect of CO2 levels on temp.
Also, Mann's "hockey stick" says the Medieval Warm Period was signficantly colder than today and the last ten years are the warmest in the last seveal thousand. As Simon points out, people lived in Greenland during the MWP; there is evidence it was significantly warmer than today. There's also considerable evidence that 1934 was the warmest year in the modern historical record.
What caused _that_ warm period?
We do know this: Atmospheric C02 concentrations (even as a trace gas) is an extremely powerful variable in incrreasing or decreasing temperature of the atmosphere. What we can't be sure about is the interplay of our dramatically increasing C02 concentrations with all the other variables that also have an influence on atmospheric temperature.
Re: Pretty powerful for a trace gas.
Well no. They GHGs are not very powerful at all. Latest research shows they are about 1/3 to 1/4 as powerful as the models suggest. Why?Helius wrote:Jared Diamond's "Collapse" talks a great deal about the Norse in Greenland. They disappeared (died, not emigrated) after about 500 years thriving. They had dairy farms on Greenland. In the same time The Inuit crossed the Canadian Artic, and Maize hortaculture achieved lattitudes of the Iriquoian peoples.TallDave wrote:The Mann analsysis was a real eye-opener for me. Much of it turns out to be based on tree growth analysis -- which for some species is actually more sensitive to CO2 than temperature. So they were actually measuing CO2 levels, not the effect of CO2 levels on temp.
Also, Mann's "hockey stick" says the Medieval Warm Period was signficantly colder than today and the last ten years are the warmest in the last seveal thousand. As Simon points out, people lived in Greenland during the MWP; there is evidence it was significantly warmer than today. There's also considerable evidence that 1934 was the warmest year in the modern historical record.
What caused _that_ warm period?
We do know this: Atmospheric C02 concentrations (even as a trace gas) is an extremely powerful variable in incrreasing or decreasing temperature of the atmosphere. What we can't be sure about is the interplay of our dramatically increasing C02 concentrations with all the other variables that also have an influence on atmospheric temperature.
The models get the water vapor/cloud thing wrong.
NASA knows this. Why doesn't every one else? Fear of funding drying up.
In other words the sceptics have been correct all along.
Latest NASA Satellite Data
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... -heat.html
Cloud/Cosmic Ray Connection
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives ... chamb.html
Ocean Temps / Missing Heat
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=88520025
Water Vapor Feedback
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... n-sky.html
That should be enough to get you started.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
> I said reduce fossil fuel consumption, not reduce energy consumption
Agreed.
> I think we need to increase per capita energy consumption to remove
> poverty and disease.
Agreed, though I'm rather a lone voice within the greens that I mix with on that aspect, with virtually all of them of the oppersite view.
> I would rather use all that hydrocarbon store for
> medicine and plastic than fuel - plastic is a pretty nice construction
> material.
In the UK at least, all that plastic stuff is causing a headache when it comes to disposal, better recycling of waste would go some way avoiding issues like they are seeing in Naples.
(Where I am, the other week they refused to empty my rubbish bins on the grounds they was too heavy ! I even got a snotty letter from local government telling me they won't empty them until I empty them myself! quite where they expect me to put the rubbish rather puzzles me, I reckon I have about 6 months worth of garden space to allow it to fill up before I run out of room, and then...)
And now your seeing the knock on effect as everyone starts to flytip and burn their waste, causing a noticable rise in pollution. (Anyone see the article about pizza cheese and dioxins from all that rubbish burning mixing together ?)
Agreed.
> I think we need to increase per capita energy consumption to remove
> poverty and disease.
Agreed, though I'm rather a lone voice within the greens that I mix with on that aspect, with virtually all of them of the oppersite view.
> I would rather use all that hydrocarbon store for
> medicine and plastic than fuel - plastic is a pretty nice construction
> material.
In the UK at least, all that plastic stuff is causing a headache when it comes to disposal, better recycling of waste would go some way avoiding issues like they are seeing in Naples.
(Where I am, the other week they refused to empty my rubbish bins on the grounds they was too heavy ! I even got a snotty letter from local government telling me they won't empty them until I empty them myself! quite where they expect me to put the rubbish rather puzzles me, I reckon I have about 6 months worth of garden space to allow it to fill up before I run out of room, and then...)
And now your seeing the knock on effect as everyone starts to flytip and burn their waste, causing a noticable rise in pollution. (Anyone see the article about pizza cheese and dioxins from all that rubbish burning mixing together ?)
If dioxins are such a big problem then burning trees ought to be outlawed and forest fires must be extinguished when they are very very small to protect us from the evil dangers.
In fact the occasional mild environmental insult strengthens the human immune system. We are designed for it. Radiation too.
All this is being fed to you by leftys. Remember:
The problem with Greens is that they are absolutists. They lack judgment.
Brits are almost totally converted to the socialist religion. May the Maker have mercy on your souls.
In fact the occasional mild environmental insult strengthens the human immune system. We are designed for it. Radiation too.
All this is being fed to you by leftys. Remember:
Does the amount plastics lengthen your life compensate for the dangers of it shortening your life? Yes - with a better than .99 probability.Socialism is the religion of thieves
The problem with Greens is that they are absolutists. They lack judgment.
Brits are almost totally converted to the socialist religion. May the Maker have mercy on your souls.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Yes, I did not realize the source of the problem though! I've always wanted to build a garbage to "mass spectrometer" separator. With almost infinite energy you could solve a lot of problems. There would be no "waste", everything could be recycled. Makes it hard on archiologists, but it would be perfectly "green".Nanos wrote: And now your seeing the knock on effect as everyone starts to flytip and burn their waste, causing a noticable rise in pollution. (Anyone see the article about pizza cheese and dioxins from all that rubbish burning mixing together ?)
That will require some big fookin' magnets. :-)drmike wrote:Yes, I did not realize the source of the problem though! I've always wanted to build a garbage to "mass spectrometer" separator. With almost infinite energy you could solve a lot of problems. There would be no "waste", everything could be recycled. Makes it hard on archiologists, but it would be perfectly "green".Nanos wrote: And now your seeing the knock on effect as everyone starts to flytip and burn their waste, causing a noticable rise in pollution. (Anyone see the article about pizza cheese and dioxins from all that rubbish burning mixing together ?)
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.