Nuclear Power at TED Conference

Cyberax · Post by **Cyberax** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:40 pm

MSimon wrote:I'm sure there is a CO2 explanation for this:

No. Just google for 'Milankovich cycles' that's the main part of the explanation.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:43 pm

Good..good...we're all agreed - we're all for improved fission, developing fusion, solar and chicken shit powered factories of pure green edible paint...irrespective of the environmental dogma we may or may not be influenced by.

can we move on and stop bickering about this nonsense....?.. by whom I mean the whole of the Western world!!...

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:36 pm

chrismb wrote:Good..good...we're all agreed - we're all for improved fission, developing fusion, solar and chicken shit powered factories of pure green edible paint...irrespective of the environmental dogma we may or may not be influenced by.

can we move on and stop bickering about this nonsense....?.. by whom I mean the whole of the Western world!!...

Ahhh it is to dream!

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:27 pm

Cyberax wrote:
MSimon wrote:I'm sure there is a CO2 explanation for this:
No. Just google for 'Milankovich cycles' that's the main part of the explanation.

That is long cycle stuff. Shorter cycles are mostly internal variability - PDO, ENSO, etc.

OH. I get it. The long cycle stuff. Milankovich cycles are 100,000 years or so. They don't even show up on that graph.

alexjrgreen · Post by **alexjrgreen** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:24 pm

Simon,

Your graph (source?) seems to show that the earth is pretty stable at an average temperature of about 22 degrees C, even at high CO2.

The colder period (average 12 degrees) that we're currently experiencing resembles the middle of the 25 million year blip between the Orduvician and the Silurian.

A lot of the world's water supplies depend on glacial storage and wouldn't survive an average temperature of 22 degrees. Replacing them with desalination and pumping is going to be energy intensive...

passenger66 · Post by **passenger66** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:52 pm

FWIW

http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/2009/ ... -poll.html

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:27 am

alexjrgreen wrote:Simon,

Your graph (source?) seems to show that the earth is pretty stable at an average temperature of about 22 degrees C, even at high CO2.

The colder period (average 12 degrees) that we're currently experiencing resembles the middle of the 25 million year blip between the Orduvician and the Silurian.

A lot of the world's water supplies depend on glacial storage and wouldn't survive an average temperature of 22 degrees. Replacing them with desalination and pumping is going to be energy intensive...

We're been stable in this lower range since Antarctica moved to the pole 70 million years ago. 22 degrees is just the absolute limit, under any conceivable circumstances, the temp could rise to.

Which is another reason anti-AGW is sort of misguided. It would create many difficulties, but Mankind could expect to survive 22 degrees. We might not survive an Ice Age, which would be far deadlier -- and we are much closer to the latter condition.

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:33 am

Cyberax wrote: Draw a trendline using your own data and you'll plainly see an upward trend: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/ua ... -negative/

Your graph misses the downturn for 2005-2009. Last month, the UAH anomaly was .001 degrees. Do you see a strong trend here, or one that is accelerating? I sure don't.

This graph looks a lot different than predicted 2005-2009 temps based on the 2005 graph trend.

The slope of the UAH rise suggests about a degree of warming for the next century even if we generously assume it's not just going to level off or start dropping over that period. There may not be any serious net consequences to even the worst IPCC cases; there are certainly no significant net negative consequences for such trivial warming as the trend suggests.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:56 am

alexjrgreen wrote:Simon,

Your graph (source?) seems to show that the earth is pretty stable at an average temperature of about 22 degrees C, even at high CO2.

The colder period (average 12 degrees) that we're currently experiencing resembles the middle of the 25 million year blip between the Orduvician and the Silurian.

A lot of the world's water supplies depend on glacial storage and wouldn't survive an average temperature of 22 degrees. Replacing them with desalination and pumping is going to be energy intensive...

The sources for the graph are in the lower left corner of the graph. You probably have to do some digging to find them but the references are there.

alexjrgreen · Post by **alexjrgreen** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 3:39 pm

MSimon wrote:The sources for the graph are in the lower left corner of the graph. You probably have to do some digging to find them but the references are there.

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/tempe ... ing-in-co2

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm (bottom of page)
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Refer ... Berner.pdf

The sources have been used somewhat loosely...

alexjrgreen · Post by **alexjrgreen** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 11:01 pm

TallDave wrote:We're been stable in this lower range since Antarctica moved to the pole 70 million years ago.

It is now believed that Antarctica first approached the South Pole about 280 million years before present (BP), and was most probably heavily ice covered at that time since it was at the height of the Permo-Carboniferous ice age. Subsequently, continental drift carried it equatorwards and then polewards again, so that it finally arrived in the vicinity of the pole about 100 million years BP. However, it only became a separate continent surrounded by the circumpolar Antarctic Ocean about 30 million years BP. It is from around then that the present climate of the continent has evolved.

Antarctic Science - D. W. H. Walton, C. S. M. Doake - p193
Cambridge University Press, 1987

TallDave wrote:22 degrees is just the absolute limit, under any conceivable circumstances, the temp could rise to.

Venus manages to be a bit hotter than that...

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 11:35 pm

alexjrgreen wrote: Venus manages to be a bit hotter than that...

If you plot the CO2 IR absorption spectra against Wien's displacement law, you find that CO2's IR absorption peaks in two places, -60C and 420C, and in between those equivalent black body radiating temperature peaks, CO2 has essentially no IR absorption.

Is it any surprise then that Venus, dominated with a CO2 atmosphere, has a surface temp or around 420C. Guess what Mars' surface temp is!?...

The only gas that absorb IR at the peak emissions for a black body in the 20C range is... ozone. Ozone has a little peak right between ~16C and 24C equivalent black body radiation.

Simply no-one believes it is remotely possible when I ask if ozone regulates the earth's temperature. Everyone tells me its effect is too small, but then I'm an engineer and I know the key to controlling something is to use a very small effect indirectly to regulate a much bigger effect, this is the nature of power control. What is the mechanistic connection between ozone and the earth's temperature? i don't know, but I'm an engineer and I go with correlations before I go with a theory...

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:40 am

alexjrgreen wrote:
TallDave wrote:22 degrees is just the absolute limit, under any conceivable circumstances, the temp could rise to.
Venus manages to be a bit hotter than that...

And Mars manages to be -50 degrees with the same 95% CO2 atmosphere Venus has. More relevant is the density of Venus' atmosphere (which at around 100 times the density of Earth's is so thick some believe it may have reversed the planet's rotation) and its lack of water. So unless you notice the oceans evaporating or people being crushed by clouds falling on them you probably don't have to worry about anything similar happening here.

The Earth has never exceeded 22 degrees, in four billion years, even when CO2 levels were more than ten times higher. That suggests there are very robust negative feedbacks.

It doesn't appear CO2 has much of an effect at all, relative to effects like continental drift. A study the other day found at least 80% of 20th Century warming can be explained by natural effects.

alexjrgreen · Post by **alexjrgreen** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 4:11 pm

chrismb wrote:The only gas that absorb IR at the peak emissions for a black body in the 20C range is... ozone. Ozone has a little peak right between ~16C and 24C equivalent black body radiation.

Simply no-one believes it is remotely possible when I ask if ozone regulates the earth's temperature. Everyone tells me its effect is too small, but then I'm an engineer and I know the key to controlling something is to use a very small effect indirectly to regulate a much bigger effect, this is the nature of power control. What is the mechanistic connection between ozone and the earth's temperature? i don't know, but I'm an engineer and I go with correlations before I go with a theory...

What's the relationship between Oxygen 18 levels in the ocean and ozone formation?

alexjrgreen · Post by **alexjrgreen** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 4:51 pm

TallDave wrote:The Earth has never exceeded 22 degrees, in four billion years, even when CO2 levels were more than ten times higher.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 04668.html