patio

Alternative Energy Storage for Global Warming Agnostics

John, all my comments were very specific to "man-made global warming", not global warming in general, two very different topics. We can all look at the graphs going back millenia, and see the Earth has had many different periods of warming and cooling.
- the algores, the hysteriatti, claimed that man's addition to the naturally occuring trace gas CO2 ( up to >300 part per million), became a tripping point of disaster, based on Michael Mann's computer model. The model was loaded with assumptions, and poor statistical controls, and has been dissected and discredited by many many scientists.
- the current global warming trend started after the last "Little Ice Age', and of course goes way back, well before any possible man-made influences
- the Mann model stated that even if man quit contributing more CO2, it was too late, and to expect a "hockey-stick" temperature increase, and concurrent catastrophic affects. None of which has occured in the timeframes predicted, and as I stated the reverse has begun.
- my point has always been, the model used to make the predictions was poorly constructed, the assumptions flawed, and the predicted results did not occur. CASE CLOSED- my turn to "shout" :)
- forgetting for the moment the scientific disussion, it has always been clear to me this was a political movement, and to follow the money. The media was in the bag until the data was sel-evident even to the most jaded observer; algore and his ilk are still the biggest abusers of consumption; the not-in-the-least clever switch from man-made global warming, to "climate-change", geez, is that a catch-all or what?
- do reasonable men plan for the worst, after the preponderence of evidence shows the threat was never there? Especially when we entrust governments to make the decisions? I think not.


On Dec 29 05:13 PM John Lounsbury wrote:

> Patio - - -
>
> You said "But don't let data get in the way of a pet theory." <br/>
>
> I would like you to give a reference that I could review to evaluate
> your contentions.
>
> I would refer you (and anyone elso who wants to see some data) to
> en.wikipedia.org/Tempe...
>
> You will find a discussion of the difficulties in making global temperature
> estimates and measurments, along with graphs of published data. One
> of the graphs shows the wide range of published estimates and indirect
> measurement of temperatures that occurred over the past thousand
> years.
>
> A second graph shows the reported direct temperature measurements
> over the past 150 years. It will be seen that year-to-year temperature
> fluctuations have, at times, been dramatic. For example, the highest
> temperature in the past 10 years occurred in 1997 and the lowest
> (nearly 0.3 degrees C less) occurred in 1999. From the graph it is
> clear that nothing in the measured temperature record disproves global
> warming. The moving average trend is still up.
>
> Now, for the counter argument. The trend of the past 100 years supports
> the concept of global warming. IT DOES NOT PROVE IT!
> (Sorry for shouting, but I have to be heard - I don't think you (Patio)
> have really understood what I have been trying to say.)
>
> In summary, I have been saying that using year-to-year comparisons
> of weather behavior is irrelevant to supporting or rejecting global
> warming. The temperature trend of the past 100 years does not prove
> global warming. The relative sources of contribution are still under
> debate. The increase in carbon dioxide over the past 150 years (about
> a 35% increase) has provided a few percent increase in solar energy
> absorbtion by our atmosphere. About 70% of the energy is absorbed
> by water vapor and that has been shown to be quite constant over
> this time period. Yes, patio, as the temperature has risen carbon
> dioxide (and other gases) trapped in melting glaciers, the oceans
> and other terrestial sources have been released into the atmosphere.
> But the amount of carbon dioxide released by the dramatic increase
> in combustion over that time has been calculated and it is larger
> than the other sources.
>
> Is global warming going to continue and if so, how will it affect
> living on this planet? The fact that no one can give a definitive
> answer on the subject until after the future has unfolded does not
> mean that we should not hope for the best (your position) and plan
> for the worst (my position).
>
> The bottom line is that I don't know the future, but (respectfully,
> please) neither do you.

Alternative Energy Storage for Global Warming Agnostics

Dr. Wirth, good grief, more hysteria! I'll keep this short. I don't have the numbers handy, but enough solar energy hits the earth daily to suffice all the worlds energy needs for decades ( or somesuch- forgive me the actual data ).
- the solar collector folks are getting their efficiences closer to truly economic feasibility ever day, we shall get there.
- the rub has always been storage ( for sun off hours ), transmission, connections to the grid, or better yet conversion to some transportable form
- per John L., we don't as we sit here no what the future holds, but we do know a lot of really smart people are working this issue
- MIT reported this year a huge potential breakthrough in storage/conversion, using solar power to split water into H2 and O2. H2 can be used in fuel cells to power vehicles, heat homes, etc.
- answers are out there

Alternative Energy Storage for Global Warming Agnostics

My, this Telegraph article today is timely...

Looking back over my columns of the past 12 months, one of their major themes was neatly encapsulated by two recent items from The Daily Telegraph.
The first, on May 21, headed "Climate change threat to Alpine ski resorts" , reported that the entire Alpine "winter sports industry" could soon "grind to a halt for lack of snow". The second, on December 19, headed "The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation" , reported that this winter's Alpine snowfalls "look set to beat all records by New Year's Day".

Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects.

First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.

Ever shriller and more frantic has become the insistence of the warmists, cheered on by their army of media groupies such as the BBC, that the last 10 years have been the "hottest in history" and that the North Pole would soon be ice-free – as the poles remain defiantly icebound and those polar bears fail to drown. All those hysterical predictions that we are seeing more droughts and hurricanes than ever before have infuriatingly failed to materialise.

Even the more cautious scientific acolytes of the official orthodoxy now admit that, thanks to "natural factors" such as ocean currents, temperatures have failed to rise as predicted (although they plaintively assure us that this cooling effect is merely "masking the underlying warming trend", and that the temperature rise will resume worse than ever by the middle of the next decade).

Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.

Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost every politician in the western world. As we saw in this month's Poznan conference, when 10,000 politicians, officials and "environmentalists" gathered to plan next year's "son of Kyoto" treaty in Copenhagen, panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for "combating climate change" with which they were so happy to indulge themselves in more comfortable times.

Suddenly it has become rather less appealing that we should divert trillions of dollars, pounds and euros into the fantasy that we could reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 80 per cent. All those grandiose projects for "emissions trading", "carbon capture", building tens of thousands more useless wind turbines, switching vast areas of farmland from producing food to "biofuels", are being exposed as no more than enormously damaging and futile gestures, costing astronomic sums we no longer possess.

www.telegraph.co.uk/co...

Alternative Energy Storage for Global Warming Agnostics

- many scientists believe increased CO2 is the effect of natural warming, not the cause.
- CO2 is a trace gas, even at the increased levels now seen- any effects it might contribute are swamped out by water vapor, etc.
- CO2 has only three narrow absorption bands for IR- it is a poor collector of heat. So even if the atmosphere was pure CO2, it could only collect around 8% of the IR heat radiating from Earth.

But forget the physics lecture- the whole man-made global warming theory has been debunked, with data, the measured temps of the Earth's from NASA satellites. The recorded temps over the last 11 years show zero correlation with the model's predicted behavior, in fact very much the opposite. But don't let data get in the way of a pet theory.


On Dec 29 12:42 PM John Lounsbury wrote:

> patio - - -
>
> I totally agree with your statement: "Conservation, alternative energy,
> and not polluting locally are all reasonable ideas,..."
>
> That said, the rest of your comments show as much understanding of
> scientific fact as those you criticize for the "human life will end
> because of global warming" proclaimations. As a scientific person
> with good training (Ph.D. in chemistry), I have to modify your stated
> opinions with facts.
>
> A list of facts (admittedly not complete) and examples of scientific
> reasoning:
>
> 1. Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases average earth
> temperature.
>
> 2. Over geologic time, carbon dioxide has varied from less than we
> have today to as much as 20 times current amounts. Earth temperature
> has risen or fallen with carbon dioxide changes. There have been
> times in earth's history when there was no winter ice (snow) throughout
> the year anywhere because of elevated temperatures.
>
> 3. Carbon dioxide production is generally considered to be divide
> between two sources: geologic and biologic (including all human activities).
> Although, over geologic time there have been periods where massive
> volcanic eruptions have affected the earth's atmosphere, over the
> past several thousand years (at least), geologic variation has been
> small compared to human impacts of the past 100-200 years.
>
> 4. Climate variations from year to year can mask longer term climate
> trends. More snow and colder temperatures in one year does not disprove
> global warming, just as less snow and warmer temperatures in the
> previous year does not prove it.
>
> 5. Climate trends are measured over decades and centuries and can,
> but not always persist for many millenia.
>
> 6. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by 30-35% over
> the past 100-150 years. This is a more rapid change than for similar
> periods of time over the time of human existence.
>
> 7. There are very few scientific publications that provide any experimental
> evidence contradicting the volume of experimental results regarding
> increases in carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) and changes
> in global climate. All these scientific publications are public knowledge
> and subject to the examination of scientists around the world. The
> highest form of achievement for a scientist is to discover something
> that is new, and especially when the discovery disproves a conclusion
> drawn from previous data. This is a powerful force that has driven
> scientific progress. I am unaware of any scientific publication refuting
> carbon dioxide measurements and climate change measurements that
> has withstood this critical scrutiny.
>
> 8. Global warming does not impose insurmountable difficulties for
> human existence. If it persists, such things as habits, location
> of human habitat, food sources, etc will probably change significantly,
> but I know of no credible research that projects human extinction
> from this source.
>
> 9. Various climate change models have projected average sea levels
> to rise by a few feet over the next century. If sea level were to
> rise 2 feet over 100 years, would you notice the average annual change
> of less than 1/4 inch?
>
> 10. There is no debate that I know of about the relevant data collected
> for what has happened up to now. The debate is forward looking. Most
> responsible scientists use models (which you criticize) to project
> possible outcomes for established data trends. The projections these
> scientists make are than usually expressed as a range of outcomes
> with various probabilities of occurrence. One problem the non-scientist
> has with this is difficulty in conceptualizing the significance of
> probabilities. A news reporter may write and article on a paper (or
> talk) by Dr. X, who made a statement like: "Based on data trends
> over the past 159 years, and estimated carbon dioxide production
> if fossil fuel combustion continues at its current rate, we estimate
> the average temperature of the earth will increase between 1.2 and
> 5.4 degrees celsius (one standard deviation limits) over the next
> 100 years." The news article may state "Dr. X predicts temperature
> rise as much as 5.4 degrees over the next century."
>
> By the way, the numbers are not real. I made them up for the purpose
> of this discussion.
>
> The news reporter would be wrong if he inferred in his article that
> the temperature was "sure to rise by at least 1.2 degrees over the
> next century". The scientist actually said (by inference, not directly)
> that there was approximately one chance in three that temperature
> rise would be less than 1.2 degrees. There is nothing in the statement
> the scientist made to indicate whether or not his model shows some
> probability that temperature could even fall over 100 years.
>
> patio, you may not have wanted a science lecture, but I offer it
> anyway.
> I would just say one thing in conclusion: the past is fixed and the
> future is variable.

Alternative Energy Storage for Global Warming Agnostics

- the whole man-made global warming argument began with a computer model, loaded with assumptions. It has been thoroughly dissected and dis-credited.
- the output of said model showed a "hockey-stick" increase in global temperatures, without any additonal CO2 ( labeled a greenhouse gas ), and the propoents took these results and created a hysteria with projections of the dire consequences, sea level rises and all the rest
- CO2 is a trace gas, and anyone with at 5th grade math level can do the math- CO2 as a pollutant, a greenhouse gas is laughable.
- most importantly, of course, is the fact none of the predictions occured. Temps have been flat since '98, until '07 and then markedly this year, colling has occured with record colds, snow events, etc. Seas have not risen, etc.
- the movement switched from man-made global warming to climate change, a nice catch-all umbrella term, but even the sheep media have trouble reporting anything with a stright face anymore.
- the movement is not dead yet, but close- most people see it for the political garbage it was. there are still plenty of people who's reputations are chained to it, and will brazenly make furhter idiotic claims, but it seems the hysteria press is gone.

Conservation, alternative energy, and not polluting locally are all reasonable ideas, but they should never have been folded into yet another government, UN included, BIG LIE.