subject:"Global warming silliness"

Obviously there is more CO2 in the air than there has been for a very long
time, and obviously the climate has changed somewhat in the last couple of
decades (warmest on record, again and again). It's hard to prove the
connection, of course, but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. Of
13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles published between 1991 and 2012, 24
rejected global warming. It's a little thing we've come up with to try and
understand the world. We call it "science".

Obviously fossil fuel will run out anyway, so even without climate change
we'd have to do *something*. I think nuclear is a good short term solution,
for sure. Especially subcritical reactors.



On 14 November 2013 06:06, Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:54 PM, John Clark  wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Telmo Menezes 
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > I would like to point out that I did not write the first two sentences
> >> you cite and I was being sarcastic when I wrote the third one.
> >
> >
> > Sorry.
>
> No worries.
>
> Telmo.
>
> >   John K Clark
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Everything List" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/13/2013 7:51 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Telmo Menezes > wrote:

> the fossil fuel industry doesn't have to convince anyone that global
warming isn't
happening,

There is no doubt that the climate is changing but that is nothing new, the climate has
ALWAYS been changing. Other than a few very brief ice ages during the last few million
years the temperature has always been warmer than now and occasionally MUCH warmer; at
least that's the way things have been during the last 600 million years.

But present civilization wasn't built 600Mya. Humans didn't even exist. The problem
isn't so much that the world will be warmer, but that it's getting warmer very quickly.

And by the way, right now the sea is rising at the rate of about one inch every 10
years, that would make for a rather dull Hollywood style disaster movie so it's not
surprising that environmentalists make exaggerated claims, it's the way they stay
employed, and without scare tactics many environmental groups would be out of business.

And in the past, when the earth was much warmer, sea level was several meters higher. As
you must know, melting ice is a first-order phase transition. Heat is absorbed the phase
change with no increase in temperature. So the antarctic and Greenland ice sheets will
melt over a narrow range of temperature increase.

> As Albert says, knowledge doesn't produce action.

One action environmentalists haven't produced is a cure that isn't far worse than the
disease. They say global warming will somehow lead to human extinction but will shout
down anyone who even mentions nuclear energy which produces no greenhouse gasses. They
say we're headed for a disaster of Biblical proportions but try to paint Nathan
Myhrvold, the former chief technical officer at Microsoft, as a villain for suggesting
ways a cooler planet could be engineered if increasing heat turned out to be a serious
problem in a century or two.

Myrhvold himself says it will be a serious problem within 40yrs even if we cut CO2
emissions by 6% a year - and there's no reason to suppose we will cut them at all. He
considers the problem "a serious pickle", which is why he proposes injecting particles
into the stratosphere, like an artificial volcano, as a transitional remedy. No doubt
some environmentalist have criticized this as a risky geoengineering solution with hard to
forsee side effects. But even Myrhvold seems to present it as the lesser of two evils.

Environmentalists claim to occupy the moral high ground but because of a superstitious
fear of all genetic engineering they oppose Golden Rice even to the point of criminal
sabotage which could prevent 670,000 children a year from dying of vitamin A deficiency
and 350,000 go permanently blind. Environmentalists blab on and on about the evils of
chemical pesticides but when science develops plants that need much less of them they do
everything they can to stop it.

Instead environmentalists insist that 7 billion people can be kept alive and in comfort
with moonbeams and hummingbirds and windmills powering blast furnaces.

A straw man mockery of environmentalists. I have a friend who has been president of the
local Sierra Club for many years and he's all for nuclear power plants, especially LFTRs,
to replace fossil fuel. He has no problem with genetic engineering except as it is used to
drive monoculture crops for pesticide resistance.

> if the global warming models are correct, that is already too late. If I
understand the most common models correctly, it _is_ already too late.

If it's already too late then I humbly submit that the best thing that environmentalists
could do is stop making scary sounds with their pie hole and let us enjoy the little
time we have left before "fire and brimstone come down from the skies! Rivers and seas
boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
the dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria..."

You mean the mass hysterical fear of socialist world government swooping down and putting
out your barbecue from their green helicopter?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

2013-11-13 Thread John Mikes

Dear LIZ:
More than ~2 million peer-reviewed articles approved the Bible stories
beween 1599 and 2010.  We call that 'religon'. (Numbers!!!) Does that make
them true?
Fossil fuel will not neccesarily run out: nobody will use them after our
demise.
And for nukes? I would say:  O N L Y  fusion!
The 'old fashion' fission nuke may be even more danerous than fossil
pollution.
JM


On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:49 PM, LizR  wrote:

> Obviously there is more CO2 in the air than there has been for a very long
> time, and obviously the climate has changed somewhat in the last couple of
> decades (warmest on record, again and again). It's hard to prove the
> connection, of course, but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. Of
> 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles published between 1991 and 2012, 24
> rejected global warming. It's a little thing we've come up with to try and
> understand the world. We call it "science".
>
> Obviously fossil fuel will run out anyway, so even without climate change
> we'd have to do *something*. I think nuclear is a good short term
> solution, for sure. Especially subcritical reactors.
>
>
>
> On 14 November 2013 06:06, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:54 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Telmo Menezes > >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > I would like to point out that I did not write the first two
>> sentences
>> >> you cite and I was being sarcastic when I wrote the third one.
>> >
>> >
>> > Sorry.
>>
>> No worries.
>>
>> Telmo.
>>
>> >   John K Clark
>> >
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups
>> > "Everything List" group.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> an
>> > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

2013-11-13 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 7:49 PM, LizR  wrote:
> Obviously there is more CO2 in the air than there has been for a very long
> time, and obviously the climate has changed somewhat in the last couple of
> decades (warmest on record, again and again). It's hard to prove the
> connection, of course, but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. Of
> 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles published between 1991 and 2012, 24
> rejected global warming. It's a little thing we've come up with to try and
> understand the world. We call it "science".

This is just sophisticated arguing from authority, not science.
Science is the process of formulating a theory with which you can make
predictions and then testing these predictions. If the predictions are
incorrect, the theory is falsified. The number of papers that say
something and the amount of consensus is irrelevant in the face of
experimental falsification. Science is not democracy, it's empiricism.
All scientific revolutions started as minority views.

There is overwhelming evidence in favour of the theory of evolution
because of the number of predictions it got right, not because of the
amount of papers that say that it is a spiffy theory. The theory of
anthropogenic global warming does not look so stellar because it
failed to predict the current cooling period.

Given the tremendous human cost of reducing CO2 emissions, the
rational thing to do is to weigh the probability of the theory being
correct against this cost. I don't have an answer here, nor am I
qualified to give it. I know a bit about complex systems modelling and
this makes me very skeptical of "overwhelming evidences", especially
in the face of surprising observables against the models.

> Obviously fossil fuel will run out anyway, so even without climate change
> we'd have to do something.

Yes, but that something we have to do is very different depending on
whether or not we have to cut CO2 emissions and, more importantly, one
of the path leads to immense human suffering.

Then there are the geo-engineering ideas that John mentioned. They
appear to be ignored. This makes the entire thing start to smell a bit
of religious moralism.

Telmo.

> I think nuclear is a good short term solution,
> for sure. Especially subcritical reactors.
>
>
>
> On 14 November 2013 06:06, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:54 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Telmo Menezes 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > I would like to point out that I did not write the first two
>> >> > sentences
>> >> you cite and I was being sarcastic when I wrote the third one.
>> >
>> >
>> > Sorry.
>>
>> No worries.
>>
>> Telmo.
>>
>> >   John K Clark
>> >
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> > Groups
>> > "Everything List" group.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> > an
>> > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/13/2013 10:49 AM, LizR wrote:
Obviously there is more CO2 in the air than there has been for a very long time, and
obviously the climate has changed somewhat in the last couple of decades (warmest on
record, again and again). It's hard to prove the connection, of course, but the
circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. Of 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles
published between 1991 and 2012, 24 rejected global warming. It's a little thing we've
come up with to try and understand the world. We call it "science".

I'd say it's a lot better than circumstantial. Direct measurements over the last century
have shown global warming. Direct measurement over the same time period have shown
increase in CO2. Industrial statistics show that more than enough fossil fuel has been
burned to account for the increased CO2. The physics of CO2 in warming the earth has been
understood for 150yrs.

Obviously fossil fuel will run out anyway, so even without climate change we'd have to
do /something/. I think nuclear is a good short term solution, for sure. Especially
subcritical reactors.

But as Telmo points out we can't just wait till fossil fuel runs out and then switch. It
takes energy to build nuclear power plants and solar panels and wind tubines. In
principle they could bootstrap themselves, but not on the time scale we need to transition.

Brent

Re: Global warming silliness

2013-11-13 Thread Russell Standish

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:35:48PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> 
> There is overwhelming evidence in favour of the theory of evolution
> because of the number of predictions it got right, not because of the
> amount of papers that say that it is a spiffy theory. The theory of
> anthropogenic global warming does not look so stellar because it
> failed to predict the current cooling period.

Actually, I remember it did - around 10 years ago there was a
concensus opinion of a decade or two statis in the warming trend - but
it might have been the sunspot guys rather than the climate
modellers. This is not expected to last, though, so we'll soon see it
being put to the test.

> 
> Given the tremendous human cost of reducing CO2 emissions, the
> rational thing to do is to weigh the probability of the theory being
> correct against this cost. I don't have an answer here, nor am I
> qualified to give it. I know a bit about complex systems modelling and
> this makes me very skeptical of "overwhelming evidences", especially
> in the face of surprising observables against the models.
> 

As Liz pointed out, that "tremendous cost" for decarbonising the
economy will need to be paid sooner or later anyway. With a bit of
political will we can do it sooner, and the cost will be less as a result.

The good news is that the figures I've seen is that its not such a
tremendous cost after all.

> > Obviously fossil fuel will run out anyway, so even without climate change
> > we'd have to do something.
> 
> Yes, but that something we have to do is very different depending on
> whether or not we have to cut CO2 emissions and, more importantly, one
> of the path leads to immense human suffering.
> 

The point is whether we do something, or do nothing, energy costs
_will_ rise. Yes this _will_ lead to human suffering, either way. We
can either choose to pay a bit more now, and have less costs later, or
pay less now, and have steeper rises later.

A 10 or 20% energy cost increase to hasten decarbonisation by a decade
will save many billions of dollars of geo-engineering, or evironmental
restoration down the track. Seems like quite an astute investment to
me. Our current conservative government, alas, doesn't seem to think
so.

> Then there are the geo-engineering ideas that John mentioned. They
> appear to be ignored. This makes the entire thing start to smell a bit
> of religious moralism.
> 
> Telmo.
> 

They're not being ignored. But they do require a lot more small-scale
research to understand their risk-benefit tradeoff.

-- 

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

On 14 November 2013 10:19, John Mikes  wrote:

> Dear LIZ:
> More than ~2 million peer-reviewed articles approved the Bible stories
> beween 1599 and 2010.  We call that 'religon'. (Numbers!!!) Does that make
> them true?
>

They weren't using the scientific method. Do you think science works, or
don't you?

> Fossil fuel will not neccesarily run out: nobody will use them after our
> demise.
>

Obviously I meant if we carry on using them.

> And for nukes? I would say:  O N L Y  fusion!
> The 'old fashion' fission nuke may be even more danerous than fossil
> pollution.
>

It's a lot more containable, especially subcritical reactors. At least the
waste can be stuck inside glass and buried rather pumped into the air.

I have been saying fusion myself (as I imagine you already know) by
recommending solar power (on the "demon haunted world" thread I think).

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

On 14 November 2013 10:35, Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> There is overwhelming evidence in favour of the theory of evolution
> because of the number of predictions it got right, not because of the
> amount of papers that say that it is a spiffy theory. The theory of
> anthropogenic global warming does not look so stellar because it
> failed to predict the current cooling period.
>
> if you're saying they got some of the details wrong, fine, so do all
scientists, even evolution is being constantly revised. With a complex
system like the Earth's climate you don't expect to be able to model it
precisely.

if you're saying it's *wrong* because of a glitch then you're talking
nonsense. It stands on the empirical evidence, which is a load of data, not
opinions. Data on glacial retreat and sea ice melting and temperature
measurements. Those papers I mentioned are based on that data, not the
other way around, hence this isn't an argument from authority, it's an
argument from empirical evidence.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness


On 11/13/2013 1:19 PM, John Mikes wrote:

More than ~2 million peer-reviewed articles approved the Bible stories beween 
1599 and 2010.


But did they provide any data?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: Global warming silliness

2013-11-13 Thread chris peck

http://adaptationresourcekit.squarespace.com/storage/climate%20change%20cartoons_better%20world.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1302730968594

Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:48:50 -0800
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/13/2013 1:19 PM, John Mikes
  wrote:

More than ~2 million peer-reviewed articles approved
  the Bible stories beween 1599 and 2010.

But did they provide
  any data?

  Brent

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: Global warming silliness

2013-11-13 Thread Chris de Morsella

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 2:18 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/13/2013 10:49 AM, LizR wrote:

Obviously there is more CO2 in the air than there has been for a very long
time, and obviously the climate has changed somewhat in the last couple of
decades (warmest on record, again and again). It's hard to prove the
connection, of course, but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. Of
13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles published between 1991 and 2012, 24
rejected global warming. It's a little thing we've come up with to try and
understand the world. We call it "science".

I'd say it's a lot better than circumstantial. Direct measurements over the
last century have shown global warming.  Direct measurement over the same
time period have shown increase in CO2. Industrial statistics show that more
than enough fossil fuel has been burned to account for the increased CO2.
The physics of CO2 in warming the earth has been understood for 150yrs.

Obviously fossil fuel will run out anyway, so even without climate change
we'd have to do something. I think nuclear is a good short term solution,
for sure. Especially subcritical reactors.

But as Telmo points out we can't just wait till fossil fuel runs out and
then switch.  It takes energy to build nuclear power plants and solar panels
and wind tubines.  In principle they could bootstrap themselves, but not on
the time scale we need to transition.

The only buildable bridge from our current global situation into a
sustainable future must begin, before anything, most critically ramp up the
efficiency with which we do things and maintain our built environments. We
need to retrofit the built structures currently here that we live in, work
in. It is not a glamorous or cutting edge activity so it holds little charm
on the cocktail circuit, but doing this globally (or especially in a large
pivotal economy such as the US) is very arguably the lowest hanging fruit -
the cheapest, easiest, quickest, intervention and change we can make and one
that if applied across a majority of the built structures would have the
biggest immediate impact on the energy future situation than anything else
we can do.

Large scale energy systems require decades of time to go from early planning
to full scale deployed & operating systems. Energy retrofits are low tech
labor intensive small operator - your average Joe contractor - dirty jobs,
such as adding insulation, caulking leaks and so forth. When retrofitting a
building it pays to also retrofit it for other building systems, such as
putting in grey water plumbing - skyscrapers that flush their toilets with
re-cycled/filtered grey water for example. 

The world and especially places like the US need to look first at the demand
side of the equation. This does not necessarily mean collapsing the standard
of living - as will most assuredly happen when we soon run straight over the
fossil energy availability cliff (denial of the global production plateaus
for oil for example does not make the reality of our supply situation
vanish). Investing now - while we still have surplus fossil energy to burn -
in improving the insulation, lighting etc. of our buildings and homes will
have long term payback in terms of becoming leaner.

If any of the teabaggers on here think this is all hippy dippy sh-t, the
biggest most successful and most profitable global corporations around are
all actively looking at their own supply chains, production systems, and
built assets finding ways to eliminate and reuse waste, to become leaner
more resource efficient organizations in every dimension of their presence
and operation. 

It is pointless to talk about new forms of supply - though of course this is
a most important subject - without first ramping up a sustained
multi-decadal global effort to become far more efficient in how we use
fossil and other non-replenishable resources. It is - as farmers used to say
putting the cart before the horse.

Chris

Brent

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://g

Re: Global warming silliness


Good one, Chris.

But you can tell from the posts here that what drives the Deniers is fear of government.  
In the U.S. since the Viet Nam war there has developed a widespread distrust of government 
as incompetent, corrupt, and oppressive.  And global warming, once it is accepted as a 
problem we should do something about, is obviously of such scope it will take some 
government action.  The irony is that if the problem is addressed now the actions taken 
can be relatively benign.  But the Deniers don't even want the problem to be recognized.  
So by spreading doubt and manufacturing controversy about the science, action will be 
delayed until drastic measures will be necessary.


Brent

On 11/13/2013 4:18 PM, chris peck wrote:

http://adaptationresourcekit.squarespace.com/storage/climate%20change%20cartoons_better%20world.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1302730968594





--
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:48:50 -0800
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/13/2013 1:19 PM, John Mikes wrote:

More than ~2 million peer-reviewed articles approved the Bible stories 
beween 1599
and 2010.


But did they provide any data?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything 
List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3629/6831 - Release Date: 11/12/13

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything 
List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

On 14 November 2013 16:18, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

> But as Telmo points out we can't just wait till fossil fuel runs out and
> then switch.  It takes energy to build nuclear power plants and solar
> panels and wind tubines.  In principle they could bootstrap themselves, but
> not on the time scale we need to make the transition.
>

Who's suggesting we wait and then switch?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: Global warming silliness

2013-11-13 Thread Chris de Morsella

-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 2:33 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:35:48PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> 
> There is overwhelming evidence in favour of the theory of evolution 
> because of the number of predictions it got right, not because of the 
> amount of papers that say that it is a spiffy theory. The theory of 
> anthropogenic global warming does not look so stellar because it 
> failed to predict the current cooling period.

Actually, I remember it did - around 10 years ago there was a concensus
opinion of a decade or two statis in the warming trend - but it might have
been the sunspot guys rather than the climate modellers. This is not
expected to last, though, so we'll soon see it being put to the test.

> 
> Given the tremendous human cost of reducing CO2 emissions, the 
> rational thing to do is to weigh the probability of the theory being 
> correct against this cost. I don't have an answer here, nor am I 
> qualified to give it. I know a bit about complex systems modelling and 
> this makes me very skeptical of "overwhelming evidences", especially 
> in the face of surprising observables against the models.
> 

As Liz pointed out, that "tremendous cost" for decarbonising the economy
will need to be paid sooner or later anyway. With a bit of political will we
can do it sooner, and the cost will be less as a result.

The good news is that the figures I've seen is that its not such a
tremendous cost after all.

> > Obviously fossil fuel will run out anyway, so even without climate 
> > change we'd have to do something.
> 
> Yes, but that something we have to do is very different depending on 
> whether or not we have to cut CO2 emissions and, more importantly, one 
> of the path leads to immense human suffering.
> 

The point is whether we do something, or do nothing, energy costs _will_
rise. Yes this _will_ lead to human suffering, either way. We can either
choose to pay a bit more now, and have less costs later, or pay less now,
and have steeper rises later.

A 10 or 20% energy cost increase to hasten decarbonisation by a decade will
save many billions of dollars of geo-engineering, or evironmental
restoration down the track. Seems like quite an astute investment to me. Our
current conservative government, alas, doesn't seem to think so.

> Then there are the geo-engineering ideas that John mentioned. They 
> appear to be ignored. This makes the entire thing start to smell a bit 
> of religious moralism.
> 
> Telmo.
> 

>> They're not being ignored. But they do require a lot more small-scale
research to understand their risk-benefit tradeoff.

And to have the depth and breadth of understanding of the climatic systems
both atmospheric and oceanic to be able to say with a high degree of
certainty that there won't be unintended consequences that emerge out of the
geo-engineering intervention (especially if it is difficult to reverse). I
say this because as history shows we -- as a species (or culture perhaps) --
often fail to first understand before we act... there is quite a bit of
precedent.
Chris

-- 

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

On 14 November 2013 16:25, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

>
> And to have the depth and breadth of understanding of the climatic systems
> both atmospheric and oceanic to be able to say with a high degree of
> certainty that there won't be unintended consequences that emerge out of
> the
> geo-engineering intervention (especially if it is difficult to reverse). I
> say this because as history shows we -- as a species (or culture perhaps)
> --
> often fail to first understand before we act... there is quite a bit of
> precedent.
>
> Yes of course. It would be preferable to stabilise the climate in its
current benign state, which has allowed us to develop agriculture and
civilisation, by simply (!) removing CO2 from the air.

(And preferably turning it plus water into petrol... but I am starting to
sound like a stuck record.)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness


On 11/13/2013 7:26 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 November 2013 16:18, Chris de Morsella > wrote:


But as Telmo points out we can't just wait till fossil fuel runs out and 
then
switch.  It takes energy to build nuclear power plants and solar panels and 
wind
tubines.  In principle they could bootstrap themselves, but not on the time 
scale we
need to make the transition.


Who's suggesting we wait and then switch?


A lot of the FUD campaign is to say the science is uncertain; we need to wait until we're 
sure.  We can't take action that will have negative economic effects on the basis of 
imperfect climate models.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: Global warming silliness

2013-11-13 Thread Chris de Morsella

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 7:29 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness

On 14 November 2013 16:25, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

And to have the depth and breadth of understanding of the climatic systems
both atmospheric and oceanic to be able to say with a high degree of
certainty that there won't be unintended consequences that emerge out of the
geo-engineering intervention (especially if it is difficult to reverse). I
say this because as history shows we -- as a species (or culture perhaps) --
often fail to first understand before we act... there is quite a bit of
precedent.

>> Yes of course. It would be preferable to stabilise the climate in its
current benign state, which has allowed us to develop agriculture and
civilisation, by simply (!) removing CO2 from the air.

That's not removing it - it is recycling the energy carriers (the hydrogen
and the carbon) into new hydrocarbons (requiring other systems and taking
more by some factor energy to re-generate the hydrocarbon chains that are
the liquid fuel. Certainly preferable to just burning more fossil carbon,
but it is not removing carbon from the biosphere (it is returned as soon as
the fuel is burnt). 

What if we discover that we need to sequester large numbers of gigatons of
CO2 in a near term horizon?

Chris

(And preferably turning it plus water into petrol... but I am starting to
sound like a stuck record.)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

On 14 November 2013 16:47, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 11/13/2013 7:26 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> On 14 November 2013 16:18, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>
>>  But as Telmo points out we can't just wait till fossil fuel runs out
>> and then switch.  It takes energy to build nuclear power plants and solar
>> panels and wind tubines.  In principle they could bootstrap themselves, but
>> not on the time scale we need to make the transition.
>>
>
>  Who's suggesting we wait and then switch?
>
>
> A lot of the FUD campaign is to say the science is uncertain; we need to
> wait until we're sure.  We can't take action that will have negative
> economic effects on the basis of imperfect climate models.
>
> Yes, of course they do, but that doesn't explain why Chris said the above
in answer to me saying:

Obviously fossil fuel will run out anyway, so even without climate change
> we'd have to do *something*. I think nuclear is a good short term
> solution, for sure. Especially subcritical reactors.
>

This seems to be either misunderstanding what I was saying, or a straw man.

Anyway, just to make my position clear...

I think we should be switching to alternative power sources right now, to
whatever extent we can, and *not* waiting until the oil runs out. Indeed if
we wait for the oil to run out we will be bequeathing disasterous global
warming AND a world without any readily available fossil fuel to our
children. It would be nice to leave them some reserves of oil, coal etc,
just in case they need them, as well as lowering the CO2 in the air,
preferably before the oceans warm enough to melt the methane clathrate. I
don't want to set the world on fire.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

On 14 November 2013 20:24, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 13, 2013 7:29 PM
>
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Global warming silliness
>
>
>
> On 14 November 2013 16:25, Chris de Morsella 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> And to have the depth and breadth of understanding of the climatic systems
> both atmospheric and oceanic to be able to say with a high degree of
> certainty that there won't be unintended consequences that emerge out of
> the
> geo-engineering intervention (especially if it is difficult to reverse). I
> say this because as history shows we -- as a species (or culture perhaps)
> --
> often fail to first understand before we act... there is quite a bit of
> precedent.
>
> >> Yes of course. It would be preferable to stabilise the climate in its
> current benign state, which has allowed us to develop agriculture and
> civilisation, by simply (!) removing CO2 from the air.
>
>
>
> That’s not removing it – it is recycling the energy carriers (the hydrogen
> and the carbon) into new hydrocarbons (requiring other systems and taking
> more by some factor energy to re-generate the hydrocarbon chains that are
> the liquid fuel. Certainly preferable to just burning more fossil carbon,
> but it is not removing carbon from the biosphere (it is returned as soon as
> the fuel is burnt).
>

"That's not removing it" is a non sequiteur in answer to me saying we
should remove it. I think we should, if possible, remove some of the CO2
from the atmosphere. Whether removing it is removing it I will leave it to
others to judge.

Were you perhaps responding to my next comment, which you've left buried
down below for some reason? The one where I say we should remove CO2 from
the air and combine it with water (and sunlight) to make petrol?

If so - yes, I realise that removing CO2 from the air and converting it to
petrol is recycling it. Obviously. I'm not a complete idiot. The point is
that doing that would be a short term solution that would make the economy
more carbon neutral and wouldn't require creating huge amounts of new
infrastructure. It isn't intended to be a universal panacea, merely a
suggestion - a highly hypothetical one at this moment - for how we can use
solar power to reduce the amount of stuff we're digging up and burning.

(Unless of course we can remove more CO2 from the air than we burn, in
which case we might even have "negative emissions". But this is all, if
you'll forgive the pun, a pipe dream at present).

>
>
> What if we discover that we need to sequester large numbers of gigatons of
> CO2 in a near term horizon?
>

We do. How would you suggest we go about it? At the moment we're mainly
using the oceans, which is bad news for anything that lives there.

> Chris
>
>
>
> *(And preferably turning it plus water into petrol... but I am starting to
> sound like a stuck record.)*
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

2013-11-14 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Russell Standish
 wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:35:48PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> There is overwhelming evidence in favour of the theory of evolution
>> because of the number of predictions it got right, not because of the
>> amount of papers that say that it is a spiffy theory. The theory of
>> anthropogenic global warming does not look so stellar because it
>> failed to predict the current cooling period.

Hi Russel,

> Actually, I remember it did - around 10 years ago there was a
> concensus opinion of a decade or two statis in the warming trend - but
> it might have been the sunspot guys rather than the climate
> modellers. This is not expected to last, though, so we'll soon see it
> being put to the test.

This sounds very fuzzy. I understand that it's the best you can do
with some very complex systems, but the fact remains that such stalls
do not show up in the projections of the various models. Also it
appears that the warming stopped almost 17 years ago, so it still
sounds a posteriori, a bit like you see a lot in economic models that
deal with high levels of complexity.

My problem here is that, when dealing with complex non-linear models,
what you don't know can change everything. Given that the earth has
been a stable enough environment for delicate life to evolve, it's not
such a crazy hypothesis that it self-stabilising feedback loops exist.
Then there's the medieval warming period. But as you say, we'll see...

>
>>
>> Given the tremendous human cost of reducing CO2 emissions, the
>> rational thing to do is to weigh the probability of the theory being
>> correct against this cost. I don't have an answer here, nor am I
>> qualified to give it. I know a bit about complex systems modelling and
>> this makes me very skeptical of "overwhelming evidences", especially
>> in the face of surprising observables against the models.
>>
>
> As Liz pointed out, that "tremendous cost" for decarbonising the
> economy will need to be paid sooner or later anyway. With a bit of
> political will we can do it sooner, and the cost will be less as a result.

But the speed at which you have to do it and weather or not you can
rely on or even increase fossil fuel burn rate to bootstrap the
transition can make a very big difference in terms of human suffering.

> The good news is that the figures I've seen is that its not such a
> tremendous cost after all.

I am very interested in this. Could you be more specific? How can this
be? Was there some breakthrough in sustainable sources that increased
their efficiency?

>> > Obviously fossil fuel will run out anyway, so even without climate change
>> > we'd have to do something.
>>
>> Yes, but that something we have to do is very different depending on
>> whether or not we have to cut CO2 emissions and, more importantly, one
>> of the path leads to immense human suffering.
>>
>
> The point is whether we do something, or do nothing, energy costs
> _will_ rise. Yes this _will_ lead to human suffering, either way. We
> can either choose to pay a bit more now, and have less costs later, or
> pay less now, and have steeper rises later.

I agree that energy costs will rise and this is a very serious problem
that we need to face. If you don't have to worry about CO2 so much,
it's easier and less painful -- the more expensive fossil fuels
become, the more economic incentive there will be for renewable
sources. In this scenario we can retain economic freedom, which is
highly correlated with prosperity.

> A 10 or 20% energy cost increase to hasten decarbonisation by a decade
> will save many billions of dollars of geo-engineering, or evironmental
> restoration down the track.

Are you aware of geo-engineering proposals that would be very cheap?

> Seems like quite an astute investment to
> me. Our current conservative government, alas, doesn't seem to think
> so.
>
>> Then there are the geo-engineering ideas that John mentioned. They
>> appear to be ignored. This makes the entire thing start to smell a bit
>> of religious moralism.
>>
>> Telmo.
>>
>
> They're not being ignored. But they do require a lot more small-scale
> research to understand their risk-benefit tradeoff.

I never see this as part of the discussion. I'm very skeptical that
this is being seriously pursued.

Telmo.

> --
>
> 
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> 
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this

Re: Global warming silliness

2013-11-14 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:19 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
> Good one, Chris.
>
> But you can tell from the posts here that what drives the Deniers is fear of
> government.  In the U.S. since the Viet Nam war there has developed a
> widespread distrust of government as incompetent, corrupt, and oppressive.

Well, it also doesn't help that almost everything that comes out of
the government's mouth turns out to be a lie. They lied about WMDs in
Iraq, they lied about closing down Guantanamo, they lied about
repealing the patriot act (and in fact extended its scope through the
NDAA), they lie about drugs, they lied about the scope of drone use,
they lied about not spying on everybody and they lied about protecting
whisteblowers. Just to name a few. These are all indisputable, direct
lies about very serious matters.

As for oppression we have the humiliation rituals enforced by the TSA,
the militarisation of the police forces, the ongoing attempts at
censoring the Internet, total surveillance, free-speech zones, the
persecution of brilliant benevolent kids like Aaron Schwartz, who
committed suicide because we was going to be thrown into jail for
downloading scientific papers. I am very sad that he had to go through
that, but also happy that the bandits couldn't get their hands on him.

Probably you're going to reply with some apologies for your favourite
team, and claim that it's the other team's fault. I don't care about
any of that. I care about the end result: lies. The Democrats vs.
Republicans reality show is a clever way to explore our tribal
instincts.

> And global warming, once it is accepted as a problem we should do something
> about, is obviously of such scope it will take some government action.  The
> irony is that if the problem is addressed now the actions taken can be
> relatively benign.  But the Deniers don't even want the problem to be
> recognized.  So by spreading doubt and manufacturing controversy about the
> science, action will be delayed until drastic measures will be necessary.
>
> Brent
>
>
> On 11/13/2013 4:18 PM, chris peck wrote:
>
> http://adaptationresourcekit.squarespace.com/storage/climate%20change%20cartoons_better%20world.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1302730968594
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:48:50 -0800
> From: meeke...@verizon.net
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Global warming silliness
>
> On 11/13/2013 1:19 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> More than ~2 million peer-reviewed articles approved the Bible stories
> beween 1599 and 2010.
>
>
> But did they provide any data?
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3629/6831 - Release Date: 11/12/13
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

2013-11-14 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 14 Nov 2013, at 04:47, meekerdb wrote:


On 11/13/2013 7:26 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 November 2013 16:18, Chris de Morsella  
 wrote:
But as Telmo points out we can't just wait till fossil fuel runs  
out and then switch.  It takes energy to build nuclear power plants  
and solar panels and wind tubines.  In principle they could  
bootstrap themselves, but not on the time scale we need to make the  
transition.



Who's suggesting we wait and then switch?


A lot of the FUD campaign is to say the science is uncertain; we  
need to wait until we're sure.


That's why it would help if people understand that science, by its  
very nature, is uncertain, and so "being uncertain" is NOT a reason  
for not taking decision.


The use of science by government of science is of the type of pseudo- 
religion abuse.


Bruno




We can't take action that will have negative economic effects on the  
basis of imperfect climate models.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

2013-11-14 Thread Alberto G. Corona

Yes.

I proposed myself not to argue against sectarian apocalypticists because
that is a waste of time, but honoring those of you that are not seduced by
the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it movement, I will say something:

Climatic models are bullshit. if you look at how they adjust parameters
looking at the climategate mails you will have no doubt. Starting from that
funny way for manufacturing models, it is no surprise that they predict
nothing as Telmo said.

There is a model of the earth nucleus. It is very good. Why?  Because it
behaves like the real nucleus. It invert polarity every 14000 years I
believe, dont want to fire up the wikipedia to get the real digits. That is
why it is a good model.

What would be a good test of a climatic model?. We know that at the glacial
eras started when North and South America united by the istmus of Panama
closed the free water movement between the atlantic and pacific. That
changed the global water flow regimes and resulted in the two polar ice
caps.

It is easy to configure the continents in the climate models and see what
happens in each configuration of the american continents. Why they dont try
it?. Because they know that their models are lacking decades of research to
get accurate enough for the simplest long term prediction.


2013/11/13 Telmo Menezes 

> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 7:49 PM, LizR  wrote:
> > Obviously there is more CO2 in the air than there has been for a very
> long
> > time, and obviously the climate has changed somewhat in the last couple
> of
> > decades (warmest on record, again and again). It's hard to prove the
> > connection, of course, but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.
> Of
> > 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles published between 1991 and 2012, 24
> > rejected global warming. It's a little thing we've come up with to try
> and
> > understand the world. We call it "science".
>
> This is just sophisticated arguing from authority, not science.
> Science is the process of formulating a theory with which you can make
> predictions and then testing these predictions. If the predictions are
> incorrect, the theory is falsified. The number of papers that say
> something and the amount of consensus is irrelevant in the face of
> experimental falsification. Science is not democracy, it's empiricism.
> All scientific revolutions started as minority views.
>
> There is overwhelming evidence in favour of the theory of evolution
> because of the number of predictions it got right, not because of the
> amount of papers that say that it is a spiffy theory. The theory of
> anthropogenic global warming does not look so stellar because it
> failed to predict the current cooling period.
>
> Given the tremendous human cost of reducing CO2 emissions, the
> rational thing to do is to weigh the probability of the theory being
> correct against this cost. I don't have an answer here, nor am I
> qualified to give it. I know a bit about complex systems modelling and
> this makes me very skeptical of "overwhelming evidences", especially
> in the face of surprising observables against the models.
>
> > Obviously fossil fuel will run out anyway, so even without climate change
> > we'd have to do something.
>
> Yes, but that something we have to do is very different depending on
> whether or not we have to cut CO2 emissions and, more importantly, one
> of the path leads to immense human suffering.
>
> Then there are the geo-engineering ideas that John mentioned. They
> appear to be ignored. This makes the entire thing start to smell a bit
> of religious moralism.
>
> Telmo.
>
> > I think nuclear is a good short term solution,
> > for sure. Especially subcritical reactors.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 14 November 2013 06:06, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:54 PM, John Clark 
> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Telmo Menezes <
> te...@telmomenezes.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > I would like to point out that I did not write the first two
> >> >> > sentences
> >> >> you cite and I was being sarcastic when I wrote the third one.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Sorry.
> >>
> >> No worries.
> >>
> >> Telmo.
> >>
> >> >   John K Clark
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >> > Groups
> >> > "Everything List" group.
> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> >> > an
> >> > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> >> > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
> .
> >> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> >>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
> >> "Everything List" group.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an
> >> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To post to this grou

Re: Global warming silliness

2013-11-14 Thread Alberto G. Corona

Retrodiction, instead of prediction, in this case.


2013/11/14 Alberto G. Corona 

> Yes.
>
> I proposed myself not to argue against sectarian apocalypticists because
> that is a waste of time, but honoring those of you that are not seduced by
> the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it movement, I will say something:
>
> Climatic models are bullshit. if you look at how they adjust parameters
> looking at the climategate mails you will have no doubt. Starting from that
> funny way for manufacturing models, it is no surprise that they predict
> nothing as Telmo said.
>
> There is a model of the earth nucleus. It is very good. Why?  Because it
> behaves like the real nucleus. It invert polarity every 14000 years I
> believe, dont want to fire up the wikipedia to get the real digits. That is
> why it is a good model.
>
> What would be a good test of a climatic model?. We know that at the
> glacial eras started when North and South America united by the istmus of
> Panama closed the free water movement between the atlantic and pacific.
> That changed the global water flow regimes and resulted in the two polar
> ice caps.
>
> It is easy to configure the continents in the climate models and see what
> happens in each configuration of the american continents. Why they dont try
> it?. Because they know that their models are lacking decades of research to
> get accurate enough for the simplest long term prediction.
>
>
> 2013/11/13 Telmo Menezes 
>
>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 7:49 PM, LizR  wrote:
>> > Obviously there is more CO2 in the air than there has been for a very
>> long
>> > time, and obviously the climate has changed somewhat in the last couple
>> of
>> > decades (warmest on record, again and again). It's hard to prove the
>> > connection, of course, but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.
>> Of
>> > 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles published between 1991 and 2012,
>> 24
>> > rejected global warming. It's a little thing we've come up with to try
>> and
>> > understand the world. We call it "science".
>>
>> This is just sophisticated arguing from authority, not science.
>> Science is the process of formulating a theory with which you can make
>> predictions and then testing these predictions. If the predictions are
>> incorrect, the theory is falsified. The number of papers that say
>> something and the amount of consensus is irrelevant in the face of
>> experimental falsification. Science is not democracy, it's empiricism.
>> All scientific revolutions started as minority views.
>>
>> There is overwhelming evidence in favour of the theory of evolution
>> because of the number of predictions it got right, not because of the
>> amount of papers that say that it is a spiffy theory. The theory of
>> anthropogenic global warming does not look so stellar because it
>> failed to predict the current cooling period.
>>
>> Given the tremendous human cost of reducing CO2 emissions, the
>> rational thing to do is to weigh the probability of the theory being
>> correct against this cost. I don't have an answer here, nor am I
>> qualified to give it. I know a bit about complex systems modelling and
>> this makes me very skeptical of "overwhelming evidences", especially
>> in the face of surprising observables against the models.
>>
>> > Obviously fossil fuel will run out anyway, so even without climate
>> change
>> > we'd have to do something.
>>
>> Yes, but that something we have to do is very different depending on
>> whether or not we have to cut CO2 emissions and, more importantly, one
>> of the path leads to immense human suffering.
>>
>> Then there are the geo-engineering ideas that John mentioned. They
>> appear to be ignored. This makes the entire thing start to smell a bit
>> of religious moralism.
>>
>> Telmo.
>>
>> > I think nuclear is a good short term solution,
>> > for sure. Especially subcritical reactors.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 14 November 2013 06:06, Telmo Menezes 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:54 PM, John Clark 
>> wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Telmo Menezes <
>> te...@telmomenezes.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I would like to point out that I did not write the first two
>> >> >> > sentences
>> >> >> you cite and I was being sarcastic when I wrote the third one.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Sorry.
>> >>
>> >> No worries.
>> >>
>> >> Telmo.
>> >>
>> >> >   John K Clark
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> >> > Groups
>> >> > "Everything List" group.
>> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> send
>> >> > an
>> >> > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> > To post to this group, send email to
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> >> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> You received this message because you

Re: Global warming silliness

2013-11-14 Thread Telmo Menezes

Hi Alberto,

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:
> Yes.
>
> I proposed myself not to argue against sectarian apocalypticists because
> that is a waste of time,

Mentioning apocalyptic narratives is an important point. These are a
fairly common social phenomena across History and they seem to be a
coping mechanism of people who are unhappy with some status quo, and
that also don't understand its complexities. The biblical apocalypse
in the context of the Roman Empire is one example. Another one is the
Illuminati conspiracy theories. They come from people who feel they
got a bad deal from life and initiate this fantasy were the status quo
is evil and it's going to get what's coming.

I sense this a lot in the global warming issue. It works well as an
apocalyptic narrative for people who dislike capitalism. It's even
associated with purification rituals and sin: vegetarianism vs. meat,
low carbon-emission cars vs SUVs and so on.

This doesn't mean it's incorrect, of course. Only failed predictions mean that.

> but honoring those of you that are not seduced by
> the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it movement, I will say something:
>
> Climatic models are bullshit. if you look at how they adjust parameters
> looking at the climategate mails you will have no doubt. Starting from that
> funny way for manufacturing models, it is no surprise that they predict
> nothing as Telmo said.

I once heard some old professor give the following piece of wisdom:
any sufficiently complicated model is doomed to succeed. I agree. The
more parameters you have in a model, the less you can trust it. The
more you teak them to correct for failed predictions, the more
meaningless it gets. The more models you have for the same thing, the
less significant the correct predictions of a given model are. This is
just basic statistics. I notice that the skeptics tend to show the
predictions of a large set of models, while the proponents of the
theory show less of them. Then the skeptics are accused of cherry
picking, and this raises my eyebrows...

> There is a model of the earth nucleus. It is very good. Why?  Because it
> behaves like the real nucleus. It invert polarity every 14000 years I
> believe, dont want to fire up the wikipedia to get the real digits. That is
> why it is a good model.
>
> What would be a good test of a climatic model?. We know that at the glacial
> eras started when North and South America united by the istmus of Panama
> closed the free water movement between the atlantic and pacific. That
> changed the global water flow regimes and resulted in the two polar ice
> caps.
>
> It is easy to configure the continents in the climate models and see what
> happens in each configuration of the american continents. Why they dont try
> it?. Because they know that their models are lacking decades of research to
> get accurate enough for the simplest long term prediction.
>
>
> 2013/11/13 Telmo Menezes 
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 7:49 PM, LizR  wrote:
>> > Obviously there is more CO2 in the air than there has been for a very
>> > long
>> > time, and obviously the climate has changed somewhat in the last couple
>> > of
>> > decades (warmest on record, again and again). It's hard to prove the
>> > connection, of course, but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.
>> > Of
>> > 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles published between 1991 and 2012,
>> > 24
>> > rejected global warming. It's a little thing we've come up with to try
>> > and
>> > understand the world. We call it "science".
>>
>> This is just sophisticated arguing from authority, not science.
>> Science is the process of formulating a theory with which you can make
>> predictions and then testing these predictions. If the predictions are
>> incorrect, the theory is falsified. The number of papers that say
>> something and the amount of consensus is irrelevant in the face of
>> experimental falsification. Science is not democracy, it's empiricism.
>> All scientific revolutions started as minority views.
>>
>> There is overwhelming evidence in favour of the theory of evolution
>> because of the number of predictions it got right, not because of the
>> amount of papers that say that it is a spiffy theory. The theory of
>> anthropogenic global warming does not look so stellar because it
>> failed to predict the current cooling period.
>>
>> Given the tremendous human cost of reducing CO2 emissions, the
>> rational thing to do is to weigh the probability of the theory being
>> correct against this cost. I don't have an answer here, nor am I
>> qualified to give it. I know a bit about complex systems modelling and
>> this makes me very skeptical of "overwhelming evidences", especially
>> in the face of surprising observables against the models.
>>
>> > Obviously fossil fuel will run out anyway, so even without climate
>> > change
>> > we'd have to do something.
>>
>> Yes, but that something we have to do is very different depending on
>> whether

Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/14/2013 3:30 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:19 AM, meekerdb wrote:

Good one, Chris.

But you can tell from the posts here that what drives the Deniers is fear of
government. In the U.S. since the Viet Nam war there has developed a
widespread distrust of government as incompetent, corrupt, and oppressive.

Well, it also doesn't help that almost everything that comes out of
the government's mouth turns out to be a lie. They lied about WMDs in
Iraq, they lied about closing down Guantanamo, they lied about
repealing the patriot act (and in fact extended its scope through the
NDAA), they lie about drugs, they lied about the scope of drone use,
they lied about not spying on everybody and they lied about protecting
whisteblowers. Just to name a few. These are all indisputable, direct
lies about very serious matters.

They are not indisputable. For example, Obama promised to close Guantanomo but he was
blocked by Congress. One's failure after best effort, to do what is not possible is not
exactly a lie. Many things said about recreational drugs, e.g. that heroin is addictive,
are certainly true; and those were probably enough to convince the electorate that they
should be banned. After all the nation even approved banning alcohol at one time - it's
not just that people are misled about consequenses; the people like to impose their ideas
of morality on others. It's one of the problems of democracy and the reason for having
constitutional rights.

I don't remember the government ever saying what the scope of drone use is. There are
obvious tactical and diplomatic reasons for being vague about it.

But I certainly take your point that there is a reason the government is not trusted.
However, it is not the government that is warning us about global warming. It is in the
scientific research literature. You didn't find lies about drones or drugs or the
Patriout act in Physical Review or even in arXiv.

As for oppression we have the humiliation rituals enforced by the TSA,
the militarisation of the police forces, the ongoing attempts at
censoring the Internet, total surveillance, free-speech zones, the
persecution of brilliant benevolent kids like Aaron Schwartz, who
committed suicide because we was going to be thrown into jail for
downloading scientific papers. I am very sad that he had to go through
that, but also happy that the bandits couldn't get their hands on him.

Probably you're going to reply with some apologies for your favourite
team, and claim that it's the other team's fault. I don't care about
any of that. I care about the end result: lies. The Democrats vs.
Republicans reality show is a clever way to explore our tribal
instincts.

You illustrate my point again. You don't address the science behind global warming
predictions or what to do about it. You make a non-sequitur from "The government lies" to
"Global warming isn't real." even though the source of global warming predictions is not a
government. I can only infer that you are really concerned that if global warming is
real, we will have to rely on government level action.

Brent

Re: Global warming silliness


On 11/14/2013 3:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

The use of science by government of science is of the type of pseudo-religion 
abuse.


?? Does not parse.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: Global warming silliness

2013-11-14 Thread chris peck

I'm not an expert on climate change. I know a couple of things though.

I know that according to a fairly large scientific consensus the planet might 
be getting hotter. I know that these predictions are based on flawed models of 
the weather system and how it operates. I also know that whilst flawed and not 
being the best possible models, there is a consensus amongst scientists that 
they are the best available models. They may not actually be the best 
available, there might be a largely ignored model that is bang on target, but 
there is a consensus that they are. This consensus exists within a bunch of 
people who are fairly intelligent and have spent a long time thinking about the 
models. This consensus has largely be reached independently.

I'm far too busy feeding my family and arguing about angels on pin heads to 
make it my life's goal to become an expert on climate change. Given that, it 
would be irrational of me not to act in accordance with the consensus. I know I 
must not fall into the 'Top Gear syndrome' and deride the consensus because I 
love cars. Or fall into the 'free love syndrome' and support the consensus 
because I love hugging trees. That would be silly. I act in accordance with the 
consensus because there is one, because it is a scientific one, and because it 
is born of minds that are fairly brainy.

The climate change scientists who do not support the consensus academically are 
being irrational if they do not support it politically. Again, this is because 
there is amongst brainy people like themselves a consensus which disagrees with 
their academic work. They should recognize their own personal fallibility. 
Equally though, the larger community should recognize the fallibility of the 
consensus and ensure that the attempt to refute the consensus continues with 
full financial support. But their studies should not be acted upon politically 
until it becomes a consensus. This oils the gears of progress.

There was a time when the consensus was that the earth was flat and only a few 
years old. That demons were the cause of illness and an apocalypse was 
imminent, and that sinners were destined to hell fire. If that was the 
consensus amongst brainy people who had spent time thinking about it, it would 
have been irrational to act in contradiction to it.

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:48:37 -0800
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness


  

  
  
On 11/14/2013 3:34 AM, Bruno Marchal
  wrote:


The use of science by government of science is of the
  type of pseudo-religion abuse.


?? Does not parse.

  

  Brent


  





-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

I haven't been able to find a source for the idea that the earth's warming
trend has stalled. This is a typical set of data. There seems to be a
slight dip in the last couple of years, but that's all.

[image: Inline images 1]


On 15 November 2013 12:34, chris peck  wrote:

> I'm not an expert on climate change. I know a couple of things though.
>
> I know that according to a fairly large scientific consensus the planet
> might be getting hotter. I know that these predictions are based on flawed
> models of the weather system and how it operates. I also know that whilst
> flawed and not being the best possible models, there is a consensus amongst
> scientists that they are the best available models. They may not actually
> be the best available, there might be a largely ignored model that is bang
> on target, but there is a consensus that they are. This consensus exists
> within a bunch of people who are fairly intelligent and have spent a long
> time thinking about the models. This consensus has largely be reached
> independently.
>
> I'm far too busy feeding my family and arguing about angels on pin heads
> to make it my life's goal to become an expert on climate change. Given
> that, it would be irrational of me not to act in accordance with the
> consensus. I know I must not fall into the 'Top Gear syndrome' and deride
> the consensus because I love cars. Or fall into the 'free love syndrome'
> and support the consensus because I love hugging trees. That would be
> silly. I act in accordance with the consensus because there is one, because
> it is a scientific one, and because it is born of minds that are fairly
> brainy.
>
> The climate change scientists who do not support the consensus
> academically are being irrational if they do not support it politically.
> Again, this is because there is amongst brainy people like themselves a
> consensus which disagrees with their academic work. They should recognize
> their own personal fallibility. Equally though, the larger community should
> recognize the fallibility of the consensus and ensure that the attempt to
> refute the consensus continues with full financial support. But their
> studies should not be acted upon politically until it becomes a consensus.
> This oils the gears of progress.
>
> There was a time when the consensus was that the earth was flat and only a
> few years old. That demons were the cause of illness and an apocalypse was
> imminent, and that sinners were destined to hell fire. If that was the
> consensus amongst brainy people who had spent time thinking about it, it
> would have been irrational to act in contradiction to it.
>
> --
> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:48:37 -0800
> From: meeke...@verizon.net
>
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Global warming silliness
>
> On 11/14/2013 3:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> The use of science by government of science is of the type of
> pseudo-religion abuse.
>
>
> ?? Does not parse.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

2013-11-14 Thread Russell Standish

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:09:18PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Russell Standish
>  wrote:
> 
> > The good news is that the figures I've seen is that its not such a
> > tremendous cost after all.
> 
> I am very interested in this. Could you be more specific? How can this
> be? Was there some breakthrough in sustainable sources that increased
> their efficiency?

The following is an article dealing with the economics in Australia of
PV vs coal fired stations

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/renewables-now-cheaper-than-coal-and-gas-in-australia-62268

And here is one for wind power:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/rising-risk-prices-out-new-coalfired-plants-report-20130207-2e0s4.html

These figure also do not include the existing carbon price of $20 per tonne.

Existing fossil fuel generators will continue for a while, though, of
course, particularly as renewables have not yet solved the baseload
supply problem. Vanadium batteries may be good for that.

> 
> >> > Obviously fossil fuel will run out anyway, so even without climate change
> >> > we'd have to do something.
> >>
> >> Yes, but that something we have to do is very different depending on
> >> whether or not we have to cut CO2 emissions and, more importantly, one
> >> of the path leads to immense human suffering.
> >>
> >
> > The point is whether we do something, or do nothing, energy costs
> > _will_ rise. Yes this _will_ lead to human suffering, either way. We
> > can either choose to pay a bit more now, and have less costs later, or
> > pay less now, and have steeper rises later.
> 
> I agree that energy costs will rise and this is a very serious problem
> that we need to face. If you don't have to worry about CO2 so much,
> it's easier and less painful -- the more expensive fossil fuels
> become, the more economic incentive there will be for renewable
> sources. In this scenario we can retain economic freedom, which is
> highly correlated with prosperity.
> 
> > A 10 or 20% energy cost increase to hasten decarbonisation by a decade
> > will save many billions of dollars of geo-engineering, or evironmental
> > restoration down the track.
> 
> Are you aware of geo-engineering proposals that would be very cheap?
> 

Nothing earth-scale will be cheap, or easy to understand all the
consequences. Ultimately, it will need to come down to a cost-benefit
analysis, factoring in the unknowns as some kind of risk factor.

> > Seems like quite an astute investment to
> > me. Our current conservative government, alas, doesn't seem to think
> > so.
> >
> >> Then there are the geo-engineering ideas that John mentioned. They
> >> appear to be ignored. This makes the entire thing start to smell a bit
> >> of religious moralism.
> >>
> >> Telmo.
> >>
> >
> > They're not being ignored. But they do require a lot more small-scale
> > research to understand their risk-benefit tradeoff.
> 
> I never see this as part of the discussion. I'm very skeptical that
> this is being seriously pursued.
> 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-fertilisation-geoengineering

amongst many other similar experiments.

I can see why certain environmental movements have put geoengineering
off the table for political reasons, but this doesn't mean it
shouldn't be researched theoretically, and experimented practically on
a small scale so that we better understand the costs, efficacy and
risks if (or more likely when) it becomes a necessary part of the
total solution.

As for carbon pricing, which is the current hot topic in Australia. As
a philosophical point, I am in favour of some sort of carbon pricing,
but I'm not enough of an economist and energy technologist to know the
ideal timing for its introduction, nor the amount of the pricing. The
current fixed price scheme we have amounts to an increase of 10-20% on
fuel costs, which I would have thought to be "too little, too late". I
don't know how the price of $20 per tonne was arrived at. I do know
that the Eurpoean market price is even lower, at around $8 per tonne,
so I can't see economics providing much of a push.

The problem is that when our current newly elected government was in
opposition, they went around denying that there is even a problem. I
wouldn't have minded if they kept the political discussion to whether
a carbon price was appropriate right now, or questioned the economic
modelling used to set the price, or whether it should be set by a
market mechanism. Instead they denied the scientific consensus,
labelled the carbon price as a "tax", and stood on a platform of
"scrap the tax", which will be one of the first bills they will
introduce in parliament in the next week. It makes me mad -
effectively they have shut down much needed debate on how best we should
address climate change, and resorted to slogaineering and ideology.

I just hope that the opposition and independent parties act to block
this behaviour, and hopefully return discussion ba

Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/14/2013 4:20 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Yes.

I proposed myself not to argue against sectarian apocalypticists because that is a waste
of time, but honoring those of you that are not seduced by the
end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it movement, I will say something:

Alas, some people just can't be relied on.

Climatic models are bullshit. if you look at how they adjust parameters looking at the
climategate mails you will have no doubt. Starting from that funny way for manufacturing
models, it is no surprise that they predict nothing as Telmo said.

First, the general circulation model developed at East Anglia is only one of a dozen or
more and they all predict increasing temperature - including the pencil and paper
calculation of Arhennius. In fact it's trivially easy to see that increased CO2 will
raise the earth's temperature. CO2 absorbs light energy in infrared bands that are
otherwise transparent. Without CO2 the planet would be too cold for human habitation (as
already realized by Fourier). The difficulty in making accurate predictions of how much
the CO2 we're adding will raise temperatures comes from accounting for the positive
feedback effect of water vapor. Most models assume the world average relative humidity
will stay the same. Some try to model ocean circulation from deep to shallow and assume
water vapor pressure stays in equilibrium with the ocean surface. But these don't make
any difference to the long term conclusion.

There is a model of the earth nucleus. It is very good. Why? Because it behaves like
the real nucleus. It invert polarity every 14000 years I believe, dont want to fire up
the wikipedia to get the real digits. That is why it is a good model.

Just like climate models parameter values have been inferred by matching past
data.

What would be a good test of a climatic model?. We know that at the glacial eras started
when North and South America united by the istmus of Panama closed the free water
movement between the atlantic and pacific. That changed the global water flow regimes
and resulted in the two polar ice caps.

It is easy to configure the continents in the climate models and see what happens in
each configuration of the american continents. Why they dont try it?. Because they know
that their models are lacking decades of research to get accurate enough for the
simplest long term prediction.

More obfuscation. If more solar energy is retained by the atmosphere the planet will get
hotter until it can radiate as much as received. Moving continents around can only affect
the local distribution. This is the same tactic as Creationists who point to the clotting
sequence or the flagellum and declare, "Let's see evolution explain THAT."

Brent

RE: Global warming silliness

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 12:26 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness

On 14 November 2013 20:24, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

From:  <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> everything-list@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 7:29 PM

To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness

On 14 November 2013 16:25, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

And to have the depth and breadth of understanding of the climatic systems
both atmospheric and oceanic to be able to say with a high degree of
certainty that there won't be unintended consequences that emerge out of the
geo-engineering intervention (especially if it is difficult to reverse). I
say this because as history shows we -- as a species (or culture perhaps) --
often fail to first understand before we act... there is quite a bit of
precedent.

>> Yes of course. It would be preferable to stabilise the climate in its
current benign state, which has allowed us to develop agriculture and
civilisation, by simply (!) removing CO2 from the air.

That's not removing it - it is recycling the energy carriers (the hydrogen
and the carbon) into new hydrocarbons (requiring other systems and taking
more by some factor energy to re-generate the hydrocarbon chains that are
the liquid fuel. Certainly preferable to just burning more fossil carbon,
but it is not removing carbon from the biosphere (it is returned as soon as
the fuel is burnt). 

"That's not removing it" is a non sequiteur in answer to me saying we should
remove it. I think we should, if possible, remove some of the CO2 from the
atmosphere. Whether removing it is removing it I will leave it to others to
judge.

>> Were you perhaps responding to my next comment, which you've left buried
down below for some reason? The one where I say we should remove CO2 from
the air and combine it with water (and sunlight) to make petrol?

That is what I was responding to Liz - synthesizing hydrocarbons in some
chemical process from CO2 and water + copious amounts of needed energy in
order to reduce both the CO2 and H2O - would return CO2 into the biosphere
as soon as the fuel was burnt. It is rec-cycling carbon through the
biosphere; not removing it. IMO - I am not certain that this is the best use
of the energy inputs that would be required in order to synthesize the
hydrocarbon from CO2 + H2O. Why not just use the energy directly. Remember
no process is 100% efficient so more energy is going to go in to making the
fuel by a substantial factor than will ever be extracted from that fuel by
burning it - transforming it into heat and then finally useful work. An ICE
engine - a very efficient one operates at around 20-25% efficiency - and
that is a modern efficient ICE. Do the math. Lets say it takes 200% the
energy in inputs to produce one energy unit of synthesized fuel - even if by
burning it you could turn it into 100% work the efficiency would still be
50%. Now multiply the 50% by the efficiency of an ICE engine and you are
getting in a good case about 10% maybe at the very best 15% of the energy
you are putting into to this artificial hydrocarbon fuel system.

Why not just use the energy directly? Sometimes there can be other factors
that make it make sense to produce a liquid fuel even though it takes far
more energy to produce it than can ever be extracted from it as useful work.
For example, liquid fuels are essential for aviation for example - because
of their power density; some energy is of low quality - for example wind
energy (or nuclear or other big thermal electric power plant) that is being
generated at 3:30 am. So there is an argument for doing so, but it is a for
niche reasons.

>>If so - yes, I realise that removing CO2 from the air and converting it to
petrol is recycling it. Obviously. I'm not a complete idiot. The point is
that doing that would be a short term solution that would make the economy
more carbon neutral and wouldn't require creating huge amounts of new
infrastructure. It isn't intended to be a universal panacea, merely a
suggestion - a highly hypothetical one at this moment - for how we can use
solar power to reduce the amount of stuff we're digging up and burning.

It would require a whole new infrastructure - the infrastructure to
synthesize the liquid fuels from CO2 gas + water. The massive energy
production infrastructure required in order to supply these huge refineries
with their energy inputs. Etc.

(Unless of course we can remove more CO2 from the air than we burn, in which
case we might even have "negative emissions". But this is all, if you'll
forgive the pun, a pipe dream at pr

RE: Global warming silliness

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:35 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness

On 14 Nov 2013, at 04:47, meekerdb wrote:

On 11/13/2013 7:26 PM, LizR wrote:

On 14 November 2013 16:18, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

But as Telmo points out we can't just wait till fossil fuel runs out and
then switch.  It takes energy to build nuclear power plants and solar panels
and wind tubines.  In principle they could bootstrap themselves, but not on
the time scale we need to make the transition.

Who's suggesting we wait and then switch?

A lot of the FUD campaign is to say the science is uncertain; we need to
wait until we're sure.  

>>That's why it would help if people understand that science, by its very
nature, is uncertain, and so "being uncertain" is NOT a reason for not
taking decision.

Exactly. Speaking in terms of probability makes for poor headlines. People
can easily be fooled by the uncertainty that science couches just about
everything it states (probabilistic outcomes) and convinced by clever
well-funded propagandists who can amplify their messaging across all media
channels, injecting doubt (the "junk science" strategy perfected by the
tobacco lobbyists) and therein succeed in paralyzing the public space into a
study it to death default mode.

The counter-argument I propose to people who have been swayed by the "the
science is unsure, so we need to study it more before doing anything"
argument is to use the example of insurance, which almost everyone gets.

If you take out fire insurance on your house (or are even required to do so
by law) it is not because you know your house will burn down (well, unless
you are about to commit insurance fraud that is). But it is quite
uncontroversial & accepted by almost all people that it is a very good idea
to do so. While the actuarial probability of your particular house burning
down is very low, the event would be catastrophic and so getting coverage is
a good idea.

Even if we cannot be certain global climate change could have such
unimaginably catastrophic effects (in the case of a massive methane hydrate
release triggered by the inexorable rise of the deep sea water temperatures
as heat transfers into this massive heat sink. The costs of reducing our
carbon footprint should be viewed as an insurance policy, and we insure
ourselves everyday against stuff we hope never happens to us.

Besides we need to start building other energy infrastructures now. What not
many people realize is how we have probably passed the global peak of
recoverable carbon fossil energy. This is hard to see in the US now - in the
middle of a shale play bubble that has created a short term unsustainable
gas supply surplus in this country which has lowered market prices. But coal
reserves globally and also in the USA are far below the commonly cited
figures and new reserves reports are down grading reserves - this is a
highly politically charged figure as literally hundreds of billions of
dollars of fortunes ride on these reserves (and the perception of these
reserves)  A large part of what had been counted as reserves cannot be
recovered - it is under far too much overburden. Global oil supply has
already peaked; as has traditional gas. Now for the shale play - the Eagle
Ford, Bakken, Marcellus. yeah it sure smellslike boom times now. And the
drillers are getting rich for sure. The entire supply chain that supports
the drilling, supplies the poppants, the witches brew of chemicals, that is
all booming now - and sucking in a huge portion of the available energy
capital as well by the way.

What is not mentioned by the bubble boosters is the high decline rates for
fracked wells. Right now everything is being sustained by a huge river of
new capital investment driven by this speculative bubble. But once investors
begin to come back down to earth and privately begin to figure things out
they will realize that far from being engines of future profit what they own
are money pits.

What they are realizing is that fracked fields also reclose up. In other
words the poppants and the noxious surficants and solvents that have been
pumped down in a slurry mix also requiring vast quantities of water.. After
a few years salts and other deposits clog up the micro-fissures and the flow
gums up. So just to keep the wells operating they will require more water,
more poppants, more noxious chemical proprietary secret sauces - all of
which bite into the bottom line.

The Bakken, for example is sucking SD dry - the fracking operations there
are buying out farmers and ranchers to pump the water into the shale
formations below.

Chris

The use of science by government of science is of the type of
pseudo-religion abuse. 

Bruno

We can't take action that will

Re: Global warming silliness

Hi Chris

I won't interleave my replies as I'm finding it quite confusing to follow
who is saying what in reply to what, so apologies in advance if I miss
anything.

The suggestion about synthesising petrol from the atmosphere is of course
very hypothetical at the moment. Supposing it could be done, I do of course
realise that this would be recycling. The reasons to do it (in the short
term, and assuming it's possible) would be to avoid having to reconfigure
the existing infrastructure that has been built up over decades to supply
petrol to cars, boats, planes, power plants, etc. With almost any
alternative fuel supply this would need a massive (and non carbon neutral)
overhaul to much of the world.

Why not use the energy more directly? - only because of the storage
problem. One of petrol's big plus points is its high energy density (and
actual density). It's a lot easier to cart around a tank of petrol than a
tank of hydrogen or methane or some other gas, for example, or a battery
full of electricity.

There are many schemes afoot which could in theory revolutionise transport
- the latest I saw was a New Zealand based idea to use induction from
buried wires to charge electric cars as they move. This is fine, except
that it doesn't work for planes or boats or for cars that aren't on a road
equipped with the wires! And even getting it up and running for motorways
would require digging up thousands of miles of road and filling it in
again, not to mention equipping millions of cars with the necessary
whatever.

One has the same supply problem with any power source - nuclear, solar,
etc. You have to get the energy into cars, planes, trains etc. A good
solution, in my opinion, would be to use the power plus the carbon in the
air to create a fuel that cars, planes etc can run on. And if you can do it
- very hypothetical at present - then maybe eventually you will even be
able to get more carbon out of the air than is being emitted.

On the subject of sequestration, plants are top of my list, but assuming
that isn't possible, or not possible enough, is there no way to split the
carbon atoms off from the oxygen (assuming lots of available energy, as
usual!) and to turn it into - oh, I don't know. Diamonds, perhaps!

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: Global warming silliness

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 7:20 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness

Hi Chris

Hi Liz

I won't interleave my replies as I'm finding it quite confusing to follow
who is saying what in reply to what, so apologies in advance if I miss
anything.

>> The suggestion about synthesising petrol from the atmosphere is of course
very hypothetical at the moment. Supposing it could be done, I do of course
realise that this would be recycling. The reasons to do it (in the short
term, and assuming it's possible) would be to avoid having to reconfigure
the existing infrastructure that has been built up over decades to supply
petrol to cars, boats, planes, power plants, etc. With almost any
alternative fuel supply this would need a massive (and non carbon neutral)
overhaul to much of the world.

True for vehicles - large thermal plants are a different matter. The
existing deployed fleet of vehicles might have problems burning the
particular hydrocarbon - for example alcohol as a fuel requires engines that
can handle high ethanol content. My point: The hypothetical kinds of liquid
hydrocarbons that could be synthesized might be impossible to burn in ICE
engines designed for combusting gasoline (or diesel) I am arguing that the
current fleet of vehicles is probably going to be obsoleted - even by a
switch to a different liquid fuel (unless it is compatible with existing
engines).

Why not make the switch to all electric for ground vehicles - Ellon Musk
apparently wants to make an electric airplane so maybe in the air as well.
Of course current lithium ion battery technology does not have the
volumetric or gravimetric density required, but battery technology is moving
fast and lithium (and also zinc air) battery technologies are being
developed that promise much higher energy densities (maybe Ellon Musk knows
something). 

>>Why not use the energy more directly? - only because of the storage
problem. One of petrol's big plus points is its high energy density (and
actual density). It's a lot easier to cart around a tank of petrol than a
tank of hydrogen or methane or some other gas, for example, or a battery
full of electricity.

I hear what you are saying and have said the exact same thing, when I have
mentioned energy density of liquid fuels as being a reason one could make
the argument for investing greater amounts of energy than could ever be
extracted from burning them. It is because they are a high quality energy
carrier - in terms of being able to stuff a lot of it - i.e. potential
energy -- in a tank.

>>There are many schemes afoot which could in theory revolutionise transport
- the latest I saw was a New Zealand based idea to use induction from buried
wires to charge electric cars as they move. This is fine, except that it
doesn't work for planes or boats or for cars that aren't on a road equipped
with the wires! And even getting it up and running for motorways would
require digging up thousands of miles of road and filling it in again, not
to mention equipping millions of cars with the necessary whatever.

Interesting. Zinc or Lithium air batteries though would have the energy
density to work for long distance air travel. Electric powered turbofan
jets.

>> One has the same supply problem with any power source - nuclear, solar,
etc. You have to get the energy into cars, planes, trains etc. A good
solution, in my opinion, would be to use the power plus the carbon in the
air to create a fuel that cars, planes etc can run on. And if you can do it
- very hypothetical at present - then maybe eventually you will even be able
to get more carbon out of the air than is being emitted.

How? As soon as you burn it you put it back into the atmosphere.

>>On the subject of sequestration, plants are top of my list, but assuming
that isn't possible, or not possible enough, is there no way to split the
carbon atoms off from the oxygen (assuming lots of available energy, as
usual!) and to turn it into - oh, I don't know. Diamonds, perhaps!

Now diamonds are forever LOL

Chris

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

Re: Global warming silliness

I would like to see us switch away from fossil fuels completely, of course,
but the road may be long and hard. I guess if there is an alternative to
the ICE it will come on line as people replace their vehicles, and of
course as you say power plants are a major part of this - being localised
 they can be replaced more easily than the vehicle infrastructure, but at
quite high initial cost.

About generating more petrol from the air than we burn - we'd have to
generate a lot before we got ahead of the curve on this, of course!
Probably far easier to do something else...

Apparently diamonds aren't forever, they burn at some relatively low
temperature - at last I've been told Fleming got that wrong in the
helicopter crash scene.




On 15 November 2013 16:43, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 14, 2013 7:20 PM
>
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Global warming silliness
>
>
>
> Hi Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Liz
>
>
>
> I won't interleave my replies as I'm finding it quite confusing to follow
> who is saying what in reply to what, so apologies in advance if I miss
> anything.
>
>
>
> >> The suggestion about synthesising petrol from the atmosphere is of
> course very hypothetical at the moment. Supposing it could be done, I do of
> course realise that this would be recycling. The reasons to do it (in the
> short term, and assuming it's possible) would be to avoid having to
> reconfigure the existing infrastructure that has been built up over decades
> to supply petrol to cars, boats, planes, power plants, etc. With almost any
> alternative fuel supply this would need a massive (and non carbon neutral)
> overhaul to much of the world.
>
>
>
> True for vehicles – large thermal plants are a different matter. The
> existing deployed fleet of vehicles might have problems burning the
> particular hydrocarbon – for example alcohol as a fuel requires engines
> that can handle high ethanol content. My point: The hypothetical kinds of
> liquid hydrocarbons that could be synthesized might be impossible to burn
> in ICE engines designed for combusting gasoline (or diesel) I am arguing
> that the current fleet of vehicles is probably going to be obsoleted – even
> by a switch to a different liquid fuel (unless it is compatible with
> existing engines).
>
> Why not make the switch to all electric for ground vehicles – Ellon Musk
> apparently wants to make an electric airplane so maybe in the air as well.
> Of course current lithium ion battery technology does not have the
> volumetric or gravimetric density required, but battery technology is
> moving fast and lithium (and also zinc air) battery technologies are being
> developed that promise much higher energy densities (maybe Ellon Musk knows
> something).
>
>
>
> >>Why not use the energy more directly? - only because of the storage
> problem. One of petrol's big plus points is its high energy density (and
> actual density). It's a lot easier to cart around a tank of petrol than a
> tank of hydrogen or methane or some other gas, for example, or a battery
> full of electricity.
>
>
>
> I hear what you are saying and have said the exact same thing, when I have
> mentioned energy density of liquid fuels as being a reason one could make
> the argument for investing greater amounts of energy than could ever be
> extracted from burning them. It is because they are a high quality energy
> carrier – in terms of being able to stuff a lot of it – i.e. potential
> energy -- in a tank.
>
>
>
> >>There are many schemes afoot which could in theory revolutionise
> transport - the latest I saw was a New Zealand based idea to use induction
> from buried wires to charge electric cars as they move. This is fine,
> except that it doesn't work for planes or boats or for cars that aren't on
> a road equipped with the wires! And even getting it up and running for
> motorways would require digging up thousands of miles of road and filling
> it in again, not to mention equipping millions of cars with the necessary
> whatever.
>
>
>
> Interesting. Zinc or Lithium air batteries though would have the energy
> density to work for long distance air travel. Electric powered turbofan
> jets.
>
>
>
> >> One has the same supply problem with any power source - nuclear,
> solar, etc. You have to get the energy into cars, planes, trains etc. A
> good solution, in my opinion, would be to use the power plus the carbon in
> the air to create a fuel that cars, planes etc can run on. And if you c

Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/14/2013 7:19 PM, LizR wrote:

Hi Chris

I won't interleave my replies as I'm finding it quite confusing to follow who is saying
what in reply to what, so apologies in advance if I miss anything.

The suggestion about synthesising petrol from the atmosphere is of course very
hypothetical at the moment. Supposing it could be done, I do of course realise that this
would be recycling. The reasons to do it (in the short term, and assuming it's possible)
would be to avoid having to reconfigure the existing infrastructure that has been built
up over decades to supply petrol to cars, boats, planes, power plants, etc. With almost
any alternative fuel supply this would need a massive (and non carbon neutral) overhaul
to much of the world.

Of course if you could do it reasonably efficiently, using say nuclear or solar power,
then you could just make a lot more oil and petrol than is consumed and store the excess
in underground reservoirs. This would be sequestration and reduce the net CO2 while using
existing vehicles and infrastructure. It's an excellent idea - if you can get past that
first step.

Brent

RE: Global warming silliness

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 8:08 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness

>>I would like to see us switch away from fossil fuels completely, of
course, but the road may be long and hard. I guess if there is an
alternative to the ICE it will come on line as people replace their
vehicles, and of course as you say power plants are a major part of this -
being localised  they can be replaced more easily than the vehicle
infrastructure, but at quite high initial cost.

Electric motors are far superior to ICE motors in a lot of ways. They have
far fewer moving parts, can be built to last almost forever; they deliver a
far higher percentage of their potential power into the drive shaft and
hence useful work than an ICE engine or in fact any combustion engine
including the most efficient gas turbines. An electric motor is in the area
of 80% an  ICE 20% 

Electric motors suffer from the Achilles Heel of low energy density of
available electric power storage. Chemical batteries basically suck as
energy stores, pound for pound. Even lithium ion batteries - while viable
even today for automobiles in most use cases - still do not have the energy
density that is really needed. But advanced battery technology is not
sitting still. Zinc-air batteries seem tantalizingly close - they have
achieved 400 Wh/kg, which is very impressive figure and would make an
all-electric vehicle equipped with them not only equivalent to a gasoline
powered ICE vehicle, but probably even superior - because one has to factor
in the much higher efficiency of electric motors.

Battery technology does not have to reach the same energy density per pound
as gasoline, at around one fourth the energy density it becomes equivalent
pound for pound to liquid fuels in terms of the amount of useful work that
can be delivered to the wheels on the ground.

About generating more petrol from the air than we burn - we'd have to
generate a lot before we got ahead of the curve on this, of course! Probably
far easier to do something else...

Perhaps if we discovered an alternate use for carbon dioxide removed from
circulation through the biosphere the operation could become a carbon sink -
as opposed to a transitional store of potential energy that returns the CO2
into the biosphere the second it is burnt. If we do stand on the cusp of the
age of carbon, with carbon fiber, and the exotic nano scale crystalline
carbon: buckminsterfullerene, nano-tubes, graphene replacing steel and many
other industrial era materials.

Some of the properties of the crystalline carbon forms are amazing and even
more so when doped or as containers of other things.

IMO - the sooner we dump the industrial era mind-sets and evolve into a more
systems aware and bio-mimetic approach to our human systems the better off
we, as well as every other remaining living thing that has not been driven
into extinction by our human greed and human folly on a grand scale. The
ways of the industrial era seem so wrong. For example things are made by
grinding away at big chunks of stuff. that is milled and otherwise produced
by removing excess material. We stand on the cusp of an era of digitally
controlled additive manufacturing. Even NASA is building complex rocket
engine sub-assemblies using additive manufacturing with exotic materials and
laser sintering. We use brute force bulk chemistry to try to make complex
molecules with limited success and purity and at great cost in terms of
pollution, waste. Plants, funghi, animals - our own cells -- have all
mastered molecular assembly. Step by step we are solving the impediments
that stand in the way of an era of molecular assembly. 

Why should we all crowd the freeways twice a day? That mentality is
destructive and unproductive. The technologies for enabling the
virtualization of much of what we now do by moving physically from place to
place in order to accomplish the goal are here now. 

To believe that the future is going to resemble the present - and I am not
saying that this is what you are doing, but speaking in general - is a
guarantee to be unprepared for it when it does arrive. I seriously doubt
that the future societies of earth in say fifty years from today will have
economies that look like the current day advanced industrialized world. No
matter how it turns out - because it is also possible we will go out with a
thermonuclear bang in one final war for oil - the future is not going to
resemble today. Nor will our cities. 

And I wonder if we will resemble ourselves? Or will be we cyborgs with
co-nano-nets joining in a billion places with our neural cortex. tied into a
global hive mind perhaps (a dark outcome), but certainly tied into the vast
network including the interplanetary one. Could beings of this nature and us
bio-humans even be said to be of the same specie

Re: Global warming silliness

2013-11-15 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 14 Nov 2013, at 18:48, meekerdb wrote:


On 11/14/2013 3:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The use of science by government of science is of the type of  
pseudo-religion abuse.


?? Does not parse.


Sorry. Read instead: "The use of science by governments is of the type  
of pseudo-religion abuse.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

>
>  There is a model of the earth nucleus. It is very good. Why?  Because it
>> behaves like the real nucleus. It invert polarity every 14000 years I
>> believe, dont want to fire up the wikipedia to get the real digits. That is
>> why it is a good model.
>>
>
> Just like climate models parameter values have been inferred by matching
> past data.
>
> I selected this paragraph alone to show that you, in your obfuscation,
don´t understand the difference between predicion (or retrodiction) and
tweking for  predicting (or retrodict) nothing AT ALL.

That is why I said that it is a waste of time to discuss the apocalypse
with the apocalipticists.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

So the measurements showing rising global temperatures and the noticeable
effects this is having, and the measured rise in CO2 since the industrial
revolution are irrelevant because the models aren't yet 100% accurate?

So let's sit on our hands and do nothing, just in case we make a better
world on the basis of false premises?

Give me strength.



On 15 November 2013 23:11, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:

>
>>  There is a model of the earth nucleus. It is very good. Why?  Because it
>>> behaves like the real nucleus. It invert polarity every 14000 years I
>>> believe, dont want to fire up the wikipedia to get the real digits. That is
>>> why it is a good model.
>>>
>>
>> Just like climate models parameter values have been inferred by matching
>> past data.
>>
>> I selected this paragraph alone to show that you, in your obfuscation,
> don´t understand the difference between predicion (or retrodiction) and
> tweking for  predicting (or retrodict) nothing AT ALL.
>
> That is why I said that it is a waste of time to discuss the apocalypse
> with the apocalipticists.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

2013/11/15 LizR 

> So the measurements showing rising global temperatures and the noticeable
> effects this is having, and the measured rise in CO2 since the industrial
> revolution are irrelevant because the models aren't yet 100% accurate?
>
> The models are 0% accurate.
The other aspects that you mention are flawed as well.


> So let's sit on our hands and do nothing, just in case we make a better
> world on the basis of false premises?
>

 Not at all. As I said before, I have my own shit to attend. but I don't
advocate to forbid you to do something for it. Feel free to do whatever you
want.  I encourage you to expend all your money in the "save the world"
shit with mekerdb and other like you in brotherhood and harmony together.

Might even contribute to the movement. I will buy your next Documentary
from Al Gore et al. I definitively like scary movies.




> Give me strength.
>
>
>
>
> On 15 November 2013 23:11, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:
>
>>
>>>  There is a model of the earth nucleus. It is very good. Why?  Because
 it behaves like the real nucleus. It invert polarity every 14000 years I
 believe, dont want to fire up the wikipedia to get the real digits. That is
 why it is a good model.

>>>
>>> Just like climate models parameter values have been inferred by matching
>>> past data.
>>>
>>> I selected this paragraph alone to show that you, in your obfuscation,
>> don´t understand the difference between predicion (or retrodiction) and
>> tweking for  predicting (or retrodict) nothing AT ALL.
>>
>> That is why I said that it is a waste of time to discuss the apocalypse
>> with the apocalipticists.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

2013-11-15 Thread Telmo Menezes

Hi Russell,

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Russell Standish
 wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:09:18PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Russell Standish
>>  wrote:
>>
>> > The good news is that the figures I've seen is that its not such a
>> > tremendous cost after all.
>>
>> I am very interested in this. Could you be more specific? How can this
>> be? Was there some breakthrough in sustainable sources that increased
>> their efficiency?
>
> The following is an article dealing with the economics in Australia of
> PV vs coal fired stations
>
> http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/renewables-now-cheaper-than-coal-and-gas-in-australia-62268
>
> And here is one for wind power:
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/rising-risk-prices-out-new-coalfired-plants-report-20130207-2e0s4.html
>
> These figure also do not include the existing carbon price of $20 per tonne.
>
> Existing fossil fuel generators will continue for a while, though, of
> course, particularly as renewables have not yet solved the baseload
> supply problem. Vanadium batteries may be good for that.

Thanks for this. I hope it works.
Reading the articles I have a feeling that this is more related to
banks fearing investments in non-clean energy that could be subject to
increasingly high taxes -- even though it appears that the Australian
conservatives are not inclined to do that. I have no doubt that the
technology is improving and I hope it does, but I would be more
convinced if they addressed the hard numbers on the energy efficiency,
sans current economical incentives, be they regulation or market
conditions. Because I believe that those are the ones that will count
in the long term.

Part of the reason for my worry is that I saw heavy subsidising of
wind farms destroy the industry in my home country (Portugal). The
energy bill there is now about 60% taxes, to maintain the wind farms.
Keeping your house warm in the winter is too expensive, even for the
upper middle class.

>> >> > Obviously fossil fuel will run out anyway, so even without climate 
>> >> > change
>> >> > we'd have to do something.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, but that something we have to do is very different depending on
>> >> whether or not we have to cut CO2 emissions and, more importantly, one
>> >> of the path leads to immense human suffering.
>> >>
>> >
>> > The point is whether we do something, or do nothing, energy costs
>> > _will_ rise. Yes this _will_ lead to human suffering, either way. We
>> > can either choose to pay a bit more now, and have less costs later, or
>> > pay less now, and have steeper rises later.
>>
>> I agree that energy costs will rise and this is a very serious problem
>> that we need to face. If you don't have to worry about CO2 so much,
>> it's easier and less painful -- the more expensive fossil fuels
>> become, the more economic incentive there will be for renewable
>> sources. In this scenario we can retain economic freedom, which is
>> highly correlated with prosperity.
>>
>> > A 10 or 20% energy cost increase to hasten decarbonisation by a decade
>> > will save many billions of dollars of geo-engineering, or evironmental
>> > restoration down the track.
>>
>> Are you aware of geo-engineering proposals that would be very cheap?
>>
>
> Nothing earth-scale will be cheap, or easy to understand all the
> consequences. Ultimately, it will need to come down to a cost-benefit
> analysis, factoring in the unknowns as some kind of risk factor.

But if the technology break-throughs are real, we don't even have to
worry all that much, maybe. There will be a lot of money to be made in
moving to sustainable sources. Pushes for regulation make me suspect
that the technology is not there yet. In which case I agree with you.

>> > Seems like quite an astute investment to
>> > me. Our current conservative government, alas, doesn't seem to think
>> > so.
>> >
>> >> Then there are the geo-engineering ideas that John mentioned. They
>> >> appear to be ignored. This makes the entire thing start to smell a bit
>> >> of religious moralism.
>> >>
>> >> Telmo.
>> >>
>> >
>> > They're not being ignored. But they do require a lot more small-scale
>> > research to understand their risk-benefit tradeoff.
>>
>> I never see this as part of the discussion. I'm very skeptical that
>> this is being seriously pursued.
>>
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-fertilisation-geoengineering
>
> amongst many other similar experiments.
>
> I can see why certain environmental movements have put geoengineering
> off the table for political reasons, but this doesn't mean it
> shouldn't be researched theoretically, and experimented practically on
> a small scale so that we better understand the costs, efficacy and
> risks if (or more likely when) it becomes a necessary part of the
> total solution.

Ok, we agree.

> As for carbon pricing, which is the current hot topic in Australia. As
> a philosophical point, I am in favour

Re: Global warming silliness

2013-11-15 Thread spudboy100

To perform a fix on the climate, and I am giving the IPCC supporters the 
benefit of the doubt, we must have abundant clean sources at the ready. We need 
terawatts of clean, because gigawatts are insufficient. Some can be replaced by 
higher efficiency homes and devices, and cars-but this will only takes us so 
far.  Think terawatts, not negawatts, and what tech we are going to use to 
replace the dirty? Faster please.

-Original Message-
From: meekerdb 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Nov 14, 2013 7:23 pm
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/14/2013 4:20 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> Yes.
>
> I proposed myself not to argue against sectarian apocalypticists because that 
is a waste 
> of time, but honoring those of you that are not seduced by the 
> end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it movement, I will say something:

Alas, some people just can't be relied on.

>
> Climatic models are bullshit. if you look at how they adjust parameters 
looking at the 
> climategate mails you will have no doubt. Starting from that funny way for 
manufacturing 
> models, it is no surprise that they predict nothing as Telmo said.

First, the general circulation model developed at East Anglia is only one of a 
dozen or 
more and they all predict increasing temperature - including the pencil and 
paper 
calculation of Arhennius.  In fact it's trivially easy to see that increased 
CO2 
will 
raise the earth's temperature.  CO2 absorbs light energy in infrared bands that 
are 
otherwise transparent.  Without CO2 the planet would be too cold for human 
habitation (as 
already realized by Fourier).  The difficulty in making accurate predictions of 
how much 
the CO2 we're adding will raise temperatures comes from accounting for the 
positive 
feedback effect of water vapor.  Most models assume the world average relative 
humidity 
will stay the same.  Some try to model ocean circulation from deep to shallow 
and assume 
water vapor pressure stays in equilibrium with the ocean surface.  But these 
don't make 
any difference to the long term conclusion.

> There is a model of the earth nucleus. It is very good. Why?  Because it 
behaves like 
> the real nucleus. It invert polarity every 14000 years I believe, dont want 
> to 
fire up 
> the wikipedia to get the real digits. That is why it is a good model.

Just like climate models parameter values have been inferred by matching past 
data.

>
> What would be a good test of a climatic model?. We know that at the glacial 
eras started 
> when North and South America united by the istmus of Panama closed the free 
water 
> movement between the atlantic and pacific. That changed the global water flow 
regimes 
> and resulted in the two polar ice caps.
>
> It is easy to configure the continents in the climate models and see what 
happens in 
> each configuration of the american continents. Why they dont try it?. Because 
they know 
> that their models are lacking decades of research to get accurate enough for 
the 
> simplest long term prediction.

More obfuscation.  If more solar energy is retained by the atmosphere the 
planet 
will get 
hotter until it can radiate as much as received.  Moving continents around can 
only affect 
the local distribution. This is the same tactic as Creationists who point to 
the 
clotting 
sequence or the flagellum and declare, "Let's see evolution explain THAT."

Brent

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

2013-11-15 Thread spudboy100


For CO2 remediation, Klaus Lachner has designed his artificial tree. Its a 
pollution exchanger, designed by Lachner at Columbia university NYC. Its 
supposed to be 100 times more efficient at removing atmospheric co2, then a 
normal, deciduous, tree. Cost? Who knows? 


-Original Message-
From: Chris de Morsella 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Nov 14, 2013 9:05 pm
Subject: RE: Global warming silliness



 
 
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 12:26 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness
 


On 14 November 2013 20:24, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

 
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 7:29 PM


To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness

 

On 14 November 2013 16:25, Chris de Morsella  wrote:



 

And to have the depth and breadth of understanding of the climatic systems
both atmospheric and oceanic to be able to say with a high degree of
certainty that there won't be unintended consequences that emerge out of the
geo-engineering intervention (especially if it is difficult to reverse). I
say this because as history shows we -- as a species (or culture perhaps) --
often fail to first understand before we act... there is quite a bit of
precedent.


>> Yes of course. It would be preferable to stabilise the climate in its 
>> current benign state, which has allowed us to develop agriculture and 
>> civilisation, by simply (!) removing CO2 from the air.
 

That’s not removing it – it is recycling the energy carriers (the hydrogen and 
the carbon) into new hydrocarbons (requiring other systems and taking more by 
some factor energy to re-generate the hydrocarbon chains that are the liquid 
fuel. Certainly preferable to just burning more fossil carbon, but it is not 
removing carbon from the biosphere (it is returned as soon as the fuel is 
burnt). 




 

"That's not removing it" is a non sequiteur in answer to me saying we should 
remove it. I think we should, if possible, remove some of the CO2 from the 
atmosphere. Whether removing it is removing it I will leave it to others to 
judge.

>> Were you perhaps responding to my next comment, which you've left buried 
>> down below for some reason? The one where I say we should remove CO2 from 
>> the air and combine it with water (and sunlight) to make petrol?
That is what I was responding to Liz – synthesizing hydrocarbons in some 
chemical process from CO2 and water + copious amounts of needed energy in order 
to reduce both the CO2 and H2O – would return CO2 into the biosphere as soon as 
the fuel was burnt. It is rec-cycling carbon through the biosphere; not 
removing it. IMO – I am not certain that this is the best use of the energy 
inputs that would be required in order to synthesize the hydrocarbon from CO2 + 
H2O. Why not just use the energy directly. Remember no process is 100% 
efficient so more energy is going to go in to making the fuel by a substantial 
factor than will ever be extracted from that fuel by burning it – transforming 
it into heat and then finally useful work. An ICE engine – a very efficient one 
operates at around 20-25% efficiency – and that is a modern efficient ICE. Do 
the math. Lets say it takes 200% the energy in inputs to produce one energy 
unit of synthesized fuel – even if by burning it you could turn it into 100% 
work the efficiency would still be 50%. Now multiply the 50% by the efficiency 
of an ICE engine and you are getting in a good case about 10% maybe at the very 
best 15% of the energy you are putting into to this artificial hydrocarbon fuel 
system.
Why not just use the energy directly? Sometimes there can be other factors that 
make it make sense to produce a liquid fuel even though it takes far more 
energy to produce it than can ever be extracted from it as useful work. For 
example, liquid fuels are essential for aviation for example – because of their 
power density; some energy is of low quality – for example wind energy (or 
nuclear or other big thermal electric power plant) that is being generated at 
3:30 am. So there is an argument for doing so, but it is a for niche reasons.
 

>>If so - yes, I realise that removing CO2 from the air and converting it to 
>>petrol is recycling it. Obviously. I'm not a complete idiot. The point is 
>>that doing that would be a short term solution that would make the economy 
>>more carbon neutral and wouldn't require creating huge amounts of new 
>>infrastructure. It isn't intended to be a universal panacea, merely a 
>>suggestion - a highly hypothetical one at this moment - for how we can use 
>>solar power to reduce the amount of stuff we're digging up and burning.
 
It woul

Re: Global warming silliness

The fantastic amount of subsidies to the solar energy (That not even
Germany will have enough budget to pay them) not only have destroyed the
familiar and industrial economy with such incredible amount of taxes. They
also *have stopped further solar cell  research* in the countries where
these subsidies have been granted.

I leave as an exercise to figure out why that has happened. It is quite
easy. But I guess that some people here well versed in QM and cosmology
will be unable to figure it out.


2013/11/15 Telmo Menezes 

> Hi Russell,
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Russell Standish
>  wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:09:18PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Russell Standish
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> > The good news is that the figures I've seen is that its not such a
> >> > tremendous cost after all.
> >>
> >> I am very interested in this. Could you be more specific? How can this
> >> be? Was there some breakthrough in sustainable sources that increased
> >> their efficiency?
> >
> > The following is an article dealing with the economics in Australia of
> > PV vs coal fired stations
> >
> >
> http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/renewables-now-cheaper-than-coal-and-gas-in-australia-62268
> >
> > And here is one for wind power:
> >
> >
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/rising-risk-prices-out-new-coalfired-plants-report-20130207-2e0s4.html
> >
> > These figure also do not include the existing carbon price of $20 per
> tonne.
> >
> > Existing fossil fuel generators will continue for a while, though, of
> > course, particularly as renewables have not yet solved the baseload
> > supply problem. Vanadium batteries may be good for that.
>
> Thanks for this. I hope it works.
> Reading the articles I have a feeling that this is more related to
> banks fearing investments in non-clean energy that could be subject to
> increasingly high taxes -- even though it appears that the Australian
> conservatives are not inclined to do that. I have no doubt that the
> technology is improving and I hope it does, but I would be more
> convinced if they addressed the hard numbers on the energy efficiency,
> sans current economical incentives, be they regulation or market
> conditions. Because I believe that those are the ones that will count
> in the long term.
>
> Part of the reason for my worry is that I saw heavy subsidising of
> wind farms destroy the industry in my home country (Portugal). The
> energy bill there is now about 60% taxes, to maintain the wind farms.
> Keeping your house warm in the winter is too expensive, even for the
> upper middle class.
>
> >> >> > Obviously fossil fuel will run out anyway, so even without climate
> change
> >> >> > we'd have to do something.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, but that something we have to do is very different depending on
> >> >> whether or not we have to cut CO2 emissions and, more importantly,
> one
> >> >> of the path leads to immense human suffering.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > The point is whether we do something, or do nothing, energy costs
> >> > _will_ rise. Yes this _will_ lead to human suffering, either way. We
> >> > can either choose to pay a bit more now, and have less costs later, or
> >> > pay less now, and have steeper rises later.
> >>
> >> I agree that energy costs will rise and this is a very serious problem
> >> that we need to face. If you don't have to worry about CO2 so much,
> >> it's easier and less painful -- the more expensive fossil fuels
> >> become, the more economic incentive there will be for renewable
> >> sources. In this scenario we can retain economic freedom, which is
> >> highly correlated with prosperity.
> >>
> >> > A 10 or 20% energy cost increase to hasten decarbonisation by a decade
> >> > will save many billions of dollars of geo-engineering, or evironmental
> >> > restoration down the track.
> >>
> >> Are you aware of geo-engineering proposals that would be very cheap?
> >>
> >
> > Nothing earth-scale will be cheap, or easy to understand all the
> > consequences. Ultimately, it will need to come down to a cost-benefit
> > analysis, factoring in the unknowns as some kind of risk factor.
>
> But if the technology break-throughs are real, we don't even have to
> worry all that much, maybe. There will be a lot of money to be made in
> moving to sustainable sources. Pushes for regulation make me suspect
> that the technology is not there yet. In which case I agree with you.
>
> >> > Seems like quite an astute investment to
> >> > me. Our current conservative government, alas, doesn't seem to think
> >> > so.
> >> >
> >> >> Then there are the geo-engineering ideas that John mentioned. They
> >> >> appear to be ignored. This makes the entire thing start to smell a
> bit
> >> >> of religious moralism.
> >> >>
> >> >> Telmo.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > They're not being ignored. But they do require a lot more small-scale
> >> > research to understand their risk-benefit tradeoff.
> >>
> >> I never see this a

Re: Global warming silliness

I mean, the subsidies are for solar energy production.


2013/11/15 Alberto G. Corona 

> The fantastic amount of subsidies to the solar energy (That not even
> Germany will have enough budget to pay them) not only have destroyed the
> familiar and industrial economy with such incredible amount of taxes. They
> also *have stopped further solar cell  research* in the countries where
> these subsidies have been granted.
>
> I leave as an exercise to figure out why that has happened. It is quite
> easy. But I guess that some people here well versed in QM and cosmology
> will be unable to figure it out.
>
>
> 2013/11/15 Telmo Menezes 
>
>> Hi Russell,
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Russell Standish
>>  wrote:
>> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:09:18PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Russell Standish
>> >>  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > The good news is that the figures I've seen is that its not such a
>> >> > tremendous cost after all.
>> >>
>> >> I am very interested in this. Could you be more specific? How can this
>> >> be? Was there some breakthrough in sustainable sources that increased
>> >> their efficiency?
>> >
>> > The following is an article dealing with the economics in Australia of
>> > PV vs coal fired stations
>> >
>> >
>> http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/renewables-now-cheaper-than-coal-and-gas-in-australia-62268
>> >
>> > And here is one for wind power:
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/rising-risk-prices-out-new-coalfired-plants-report-20130207-2e0s4.html
>> >
>> > These figure also do not include the existing carbon price of $20 per
>> tonne.
>> >
>> > Existing fossil fuel generators will continue for a while, though, of
>> > course, particularly as renewables have not yet solved the baseload
>> > supply problem. Vanadium batteries may be good for that.
>>
>> Thanks for this. I hope it works.
>> Reading the articles I have a feeling that this is more related to
>> banks fearing investments in non-clean energy that could be subject to
>> increasingly high taxes -- even though it appears that the Australian
>> conservatives are not inclined to do that. I have no doubt that the
>> technology is improving and I hope it does, but I would be more
>> convinced if they addressed the hard numbers on the energy efficiency,
>> sans current economical incentives, be they regulation or market
>> conditions. Because I believe that those are the ones that will count
>> in the long term.
>>
>> Part of the reason for my worry is that I saw heavy subsidising of
>> wind farms destroy the industry in my home country (Portugal). The
>> energy bill there is now about 60% taxes, to maintain the wind farms.
>> Keeping your house warm in the winter is too expensive, even for the
>> upper middle class.
>>
>> >> >> > Obviously fossil fuel will run out anyway, so even without
>> climate change
>> >> >> > we'd have to do something.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes, but that something we have to do is very different depending on
>> >> >> whether or not we have to cut CO2 emissions and, more importantly,
>> one
>> >> >> of the path leads to immense human suffering.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > The point is whether we do something, or do nothing, energy costs
>> >> > _will_ rise. Yes this _will_ lead to human suffering, either way. We
>> >> > can either choose to pay a bit more now, and have less costs later,
>> or
>> >> > pay less now, and have steeper rises later.
>> >>
>> >> I agree that energy costs will rise and this is a very serious problem
>> >> that we need to face. If you don't have to worry about CO2 so much,
>> >> it's easier and less painful -- the more expensive fossil fuels
>> >> become, the more economic incentive there will be for renewable
>> >> sources. In this scenario we can retain economic freedom, which is
>> >> highly correlated with prosperity.
>> >>
>> >> > A 10 or 20% energy cost increase to hasten decarbonisation by a
>> decade
>> >> > will save many billions of dollars of geo-engineering, or
>> evironmental
>> >> > restoration down the track.
>> >>
>> >> Are you aware of geo-engineering proposals that would be very cheap?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Nothing earth-scale will be cheap, or easy to understand all the
>> > consequences. Ultimately, it will need to come down to a cost-benefit
>> > analysis, factoring in the unknowns as some kind of risk factor.
>>
>> But if the technology break-throughs are real, we don't even have to
>> worry all that much, maybe. There will be a lot of money to be made in
>> moving to sustainable sources. Pushes for regulation make me suspect
>> that the technology is not there yet. In which case I agree with you.
>>
>> >> > Seems like quite an astute investment to
>> >> > me. Our current conservative government, alas, doesn't seem to think
>> >> > so.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Then there are the geo-engineering ideas that John mentioned. They
>> >> >> appear to be ignored. This makes the entire thing start to smell a
>> bit
>> >> >> of religio

Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/15/2013 2:11 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

There is a model of the earth nucleus. It is very good. Why? Because
it behaves
like the real nucleus. It invert polarity every 14000 years I believe,
dont want
to fire up the wikipedia to get the real digits. That is why it is a
good model.

Just like climate models parameter values have been inferred by matching
past data.

I selected this paragraph alone

"Selected"? I thought you wrote it.

to show that you, in your obfuscation, don´t understand the difference between predicion
(or retrodiction) and tweking for predicting (or retrodict) nothing AT ALL.

I understand that to predict something with a computer program you have to provide
parameter values as well as dynamic equations. There is always uncertainty about the value
of those parameters: heat transfer coefficients, albedo, enthalpy... So when I compare my
model output to actual data (if there is any) I of course try adjusting some of the more
uncertain parameters to improve the fit because that will improve the predictive accuracy
of the model. I don't adjust them beyond the original uncertainty bounds, because then
it's just curve fitting. Curve fitting can give good predictions too, but it doesn't
given any insight into how the system works or what to modify to change it. I understand
this because I do it for a living. So I'm afraid it is you who are the amateur here.

That is why I said that it is a waste of time to discuss the apocalypse with the
apocalipticists.

There's nothing apocalyptic about global warming. Human will survive as a species. At
least so long as it doesn't trigger a nuclear war. But there will be a lot death and
suffering.

Brent

Re: Global warming silliness

I rephrase my affirmation as a question, so that even a kid can understand
it:

The models of the earth nucleus predict an inversion of polatity every
14000 years, just what happens in the real Eart nucleus.

What fact of the earth climate the climate models are capable to predict?


2013/11/15 meekerdb 

>  On 11/15/2013 2:11 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
>   There is a model of the earth nucleus. It is very good. Why?  Because
>>> it behaves like the real nucleus. It invert polarity every 14000 years I
>>> believe, dont want to fire up the wikipedia to get the real digits. That is
>>> why it is a good model.
>>>
>>
>>  Just like climate models parameter values have been inferred by matching
>> past data.
>>
>>  I selected this paragraph alone
>
>
> "Selected"? I thought you wrote it.
>
>
>  to show that you, in your obfuscation, don´t understand the difference
> between predicion (or retrodiction) and tweking for  predicting (or
> retrodict) nothing AT ALL.
>
>
> I understand that to predict something with a computer program you have to
> provide parameter values as well as dynamic equations.  There is always
> uncertainty about the value of those parameters: heat transfer
> coefficients, albedo, enthalpy...  So when I compare my model output to
> actual data (if there is any) I of course try adjusting some of the more
> uncertain parameters to improve the fit because that will improve the
> predictive accuracy of the model.  I don't adjust them beyond the original
> uncertainty bounds, because then it's just curve fitting.  Curve fitting
> can give good predictions too, but it doesn't given any insight into how
> the system works or what to modify to change it.  I understand this because
> I do it for a living.  So I'm afraid it is you who are the amateur here.
>
>
>  That is why I said that it is a waste of time to discuss the apocalypse
> with the apocalipticists.
>
>
> There's nothing apocalyptic about global warming.  Human will survive as a
> species.  At least so long as it doesn't trigger a nuclear war.  But there
> will be a lot death and suffering.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

2013-11-15 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:19 PM, John Mikes  wrote:

> And for nukes? I would say:  O N L Y  fusion!
> The 'old fashion' fission nuke may be even more danerous than fossil
> pollution.
>

Lets look at the disasters associated with various energy producing
projects:

In 1975 the Shimantan/Banqiao hydroelectric Dam in China failed and killed
171,000 people.

In 1979 the Three Mile Island reactor melted down and killed nobody.

In 1986 the Chernobyl nuclear plant melted down and killed 31 immediately
and 4000 many decades later.

In 1979 the Morvi hydroelectric Dam in India failed and killed 1500 people,

In 1998 a oil pipeline in Nigeria exploded and killed 1078 people.

In 1907 the Monongah Coal Mine in West Virginia exploded and killed well
over 500 people.

In 1944 a liquified natural gas factory exploded in Cleveland Ohio and
killed 130 people.

In 2011 the Fukushima nuclear power plant melted down and killed nobody.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness


On 11/15/2013 5:29 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
The fantastic amount of subsidies to the solar energy (That not even Germany will have 
enough budget to pay them) not only have destroyed the familiar and industrial economy 
with such incredible amount of taxes.


"Germany's Industrial Economy Destroyed!"  Does Angela Merkel know about this? Does 
Alberto know about the fantastic amount of subsidy to the fossil fuel industry that is 
afforded to them by *not* charging them for the damage they do to the environment?


Brent
"Bergeron's epitaph for the planet, I remember, which he said
should be carved in big letters in a wall of the Grand Canyon for
the flying-saucer people to find, was this:
   WE COULD HAVE SAVED IT
   BUT WE WERE TOO DOGGONE CHEAP
Only he didn't say 'doggone.'"
--- Kurt Vonnegut Hocus Pocus




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

Germany was forced to reduce the subsidies retroactively, that means
breaking the contracts with already installed power plants. Like spain and
other countries. Even, so the taxes over electricity consumption would
provoke a revolution in USA.


2013/11/15 meekerdb 

>  On 11/15/2013 5:29 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
> The fantastic amount of subsidies to the solar energy (That not even
> Germany will have enough budget to pay them) not only have destroyed the
> familiar and industrial economy with such incredible amount of taxes.
>
>
> "Germany's Industrial Economy Destroyed!"  Does Angela Merkel know about
> this?  Does Alberto know about the fantastic amount of subsidy to the
> fossil fuel industry that is afforded to them by *not* charging them for
> the damage they do to the environment?
>
> Brent
> "Bergeron's epitaph for the planet, I remember, which he said
> should be carved in big letters in a wall of the Grand Canyon for
> the flying-saucer people to find, was this:
>WE COULD HAVE SAVED IT
>BUT WE WERE TOO DOGGONE CHEAP
> Only he didn't say 'doggone.'"
> --- Kurt Vonnegut Hocus Pocus
>
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

Solar irradiance on the Earth is approximately 1.74×1017 Watts.

On 16 November 2013 02:13,  wrote:

> To perform a fix on the climate, and I am giving the IPCC supporters the
> benefit of the doubt, we must have abundant clean sources at the ready. We
> need terawatts of clean, because gigawatts are insufficient. Some can be
> replaced by higher efficiency homes and devices, and cars-but this will
> only takes us so far.  Think terawatts, not negawatts, and what tech we are
> going to use to replace the dirty? Faster please.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

On 16 November 2013 07:18, meekerdb  wrote:

> There's nothing apocalyptic about global warming.  Human will survive as a
> species.  At least so long as it doesn't trigger a nuclear war.  But there
> will be a lot death and suffering.
>

I agree. The question is whether our civilisation will survive. Without it
we may well be doomed to remain on Earth, and eventually get flattened by
the next passing asteroid, after a period of living in Medieval squalor. I
want something better for my descendants than that.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

On 16 November 2013 07:34, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:

> I rephrase my affirmation as a question, so that even a kid can understand
> it:
>
> The models of the earth nucleus predict an inversion of polatity every
> 14000 years, just what happens in the real Eart nucleus.
>
> What fact of the earth climate the climate models are capable to predict?
>
> Rising temperatures.

Fourier could have told you that in the 19th century.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

On 16 November 2013 08:20, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 11/15/2013 5:29 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
> The fantastic amount of subsidies to the solar energy (That not even
> Germany will have enough budget to pay them) not only have destroyed the
> familiar and industrial economy with such incredible amount of taxes.
>
>
> "Germany's Industrial Economy Destroyed!"  Does Angela Merkel know about
> this?  Does Alberto know about the fantastic amount of subsidy to the
> fossil fuel industry that is afforded to them by *not* charging them for
> the damage they do to the environment?
>
> Indeed. Never mind the huge subsidied they get on top of that. They pay a
few million dollars to political parties and get an astronomical return.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

2013-11-15 Thread Richard Ruquist

LizR
3:23 PM (29 minutes ago)
to everything-list
On 16 November 2013 07:34, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:

> I rephrase my affirmation as a question, so that even a kid can understand
> it:
>
> The models of the earth nucleus predict an inversion of polatity every
> 14000 years, just what happens in the real Eart nucleus.
>
> What fact of the earth climate the climate models are capable to predict?
>
> Rising temperatures.

Fourier could have told you that in the 19th century.

Liz, Global temperatures fell from 1950 to 1980 while CO2 atm content was
rising. Can you explain that? Richard


On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:23 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 16 November 2013 07:34, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:
>
>> I rephrase my affirmation as a question, so that even a kid can
>> understand it:
>>
>> The models of the earth nucleus predict an inversion of polatity every
>> 14000 years, just what happens in the real Eart nucleus.
>>
>> What fact of the earth climate the climate models are capable to predict?
>>
>> Rising temperatures.
>
> Fourier could have told you that in the 19th century.
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness


On 11/15/2013 11:06 AM, John Clark wrote:




On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:19 PM, John Mikes > wrote:



> And for nukes? I would say:  O N L Y  fusion!
The 'old fashion' fission nuke may be even more danerous than fossil 
pollution.


Lets look at the disasters associated with various energy producing projects:

In 1975 the Shimantan/Banqiao hydroelectric Dam in China failed and killed 
171,000 people.

In 1979 the Three Mile Island reactor melted down and killed nobody.

In 1986 the Chernobyl nuclear plant melted down and killed 31 immediately and 4000 many 
decades later.


In 1979 the Morvi hydroelectric Dam in India failed and killed 1500 people,

In 1998 a oil pipeline in Nigeria exploded and killed 1078 people.

In 1907 the Monongah Coal Mine in West Virginia exploded and killed well over 
500 people.

In 1944 a liquified natural gas factory exploded in Cleveland Ohio and killed 
130 people.

In 2011 the Fukushima nuclear power plant melted down and killed nobody.


Not only that, coal mining releases a lot more radioctivity into the atmosphere than 
nuclear plants ever have.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

2013-11-15 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:09 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

> in the past, when the earth was much warmer, sea level was several meters
> higher.
>

The sea was hundreds of meters higher in the past and will be so again
someday, but at a rate of one inch a decade we'll have plenty of time to
adapt.

> As you must know, melting ice
>

Which occurs at 32 degrees Fahrenheit.

> is a first-order phase transition.  Heat is absorbed the phase change
> with no increase in temperature.
>

Yes, and that means more energy would be required to melt all that ice than
would otherwise be the case.

> Myrhvold himself says it will be a serious problem within 40yrs even if
> we cut CO2 emissions by 6% a year - and there's no reason to suppose we
> will cut them at all.  He considers the problem "a serious pickle", which
> is why he proposes injecting particles into the stratosphere, like an
> artificial volcano, as a transitional remedy.  No doubt some
> environmentalist have criticized this as a risky geoengineering solution
> with hard to forsee side effects.

And no doubt you are correct, environmentalist claim we face a existential
threat from global warming, but whenever anybody proposes a solution their
response is always exactly the same, no no no.

>  >> Environmentalists claim to occupy the moral high ground but because
> of a superstitious fear of all genetic engineering they oppose Golden Rice
> even to the point of criminal sabotage which could prevent 670,000 children
> a year from dying of vitamin A deficiency and 350,000 go permanently blind.
> Environmentalists blab on and on about the evils of chemical pesticides but
> when science develops plants that need much less of them they do everything
> they can to stop it. Instead environmentalists insist that 7 billion people
> can be kept alive and in comfort with moonbeams and hummingbirds and
> windmills powering blast furnaces.
>
>  > A straw man mockery of environmentalists.
>

Straw man my ass, environmentalists never met a energy source they didn't
hate. Wind farms are ugly, disrupt wind patterns are noisy and kill
birdies. Geothermal smells bad and causes earthquakes. Hydroelectric floods
the land and new dams may also cause earthquakes. Bio-fuel diverts needed
food production to fuel. Solar energy is so dilute that vast tracks of land
are needed and that will endanger a desert lizard you never heard of. And
of course there is the "N" word, the energy source so hated that tree
huggers dare not speak its name. I however sometimes take the heretical
view that the environmentalist's preferred solution to this problem,
freezing to death in the dark, may not be ideal.

> > I have a friend who has been president of the local Sierra Club for many
> years and he's all for nuclear power plants,
>

>From the Sierra Club official website:

"The Sierra Club remains unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy."

For more crap see:

http://www.sierraclub.org/nuclear/

> especially LFTRs, to replace fossil fuel.
>

Good, I'm a big fan of LFTRs, too bad all members of the Sierra Club aren't
as enlightened.

> > He has no problem with genetic engineering
>

 From the Sierra Club official website:

" Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or genetically engineered (GE)
foods have the potential to cause a variety of health problems."

For more crap see:

http://www.sierraclub.org/biotech/

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

[image: Inline images 1]


On 16 November 2013 09:54, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

>
> Liz, Global temperatures fell from 1950 to 1980 while CO2 atm content was
> rising. Can you explain that? Richard
>
> Why should I? This is a complex system with an uncontrolled experiment
running in it. Since I was born the CO2 has gone up 25%, that is a major
piece of unintended planetary engineering, the effects of CO2 on solar
irradiance are well understood, and on average the global temperature is
going up just as predicted. There is a real, measurable effect, as the
firefighters of Australia and the entire population of the Phillippines
(amongst many, many others already affected by it) can tell you. Denying
its existence means being blind to the data - the (hehe) cold, hard facts.
Questioning the *reason *for it is at least somewhat sensible, though
becoming less so as emissions increase more rapidly and temperatures do
likewise, by what must seem to some people like, wow, what an amazing
coincidence. The main question is, what (if anything) can we do about it,
preferably before the oceans above the thermocline warm the 2 degrees
required to bring gigatonnes of methane out of suspension?

PS on the subject of the plateau shown above - maybe those other factors
deniers are always going on about were involved? Pollution increasing the
Earth's albedo, solar cycles, something to do with the second world war or
nuclear testing, whatever? Show me a graph measured by NASA or the Arctic
Institute where the temperature (and preferably the CO2) go back to their
1900 level and you'll have something worth discussing.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

On 16 November 2013 10:07, John Clark  wrote:

>
> Straw man my ass, environmentalists never met a energy source they didn't
> hate. Wind farms are ugly, disrupt wind patterns are noisy and kill
> birdies. Geothermal smells bad and causes earthquakes. Hydroelectric floods
> the land and new dams may also cause earthquakes. Bio-fuel diverts needed
> food production to fuel. Solar energy is so dilute that vast tracks of land
> are needed and that will endanger a desert lizard you never heard of. And
> of course there is the "N" word, the energy source so hated that tree
> huggers dare not speak its name. I however sometimes take the heretical
> view that the environmentalist's preferred solution to this problem,
> freezing to death in the dark, may not be ideal.
>

So what do you call me, someone who is worried about the environment but
mainly because of the effects destroying it will have on humanity, who is
prepared to embrace all forms of alternative power including nuclear if
that will save us, and who thinks the best solution for the human race is
to improve our technolgy asap, and to whom the idea of returning to the
"golden age" of no dentistry and droit de signeur is an abiding dread?

A "person hugger" ?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

2013-11-15 Thread Russell Standish

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 10:18:17AM +1300, LizR wrote:
> [image: Inline images 1]
> 
> 
> On 16 November 2013 09:54, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
> 
> >
> > Liz, Global temperatures fell from 1950 to 1980 while CO2 atm content was
> > rising. Can you explain that? Richard
> >
> PS on the subject of the plateau shown above - maybe those other factors
> deniers are always going on about were involved? Pollution increasing the
> Earth's albedo, solar cycles, something to do with the second world war or
> nuclear testing, whatever? Show me a graph measured by NASA or the Arctic
> Institute where the temperature (and preferably the CO2) go back to their
> 1900 level and you'll have something worth discussing.
> 

This is due to the presence of aerosols. Ironically, cleaning up our
pollution has caused the planet to warm faster.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century.htm

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

On 16 November 2013 10:48, Russell Standish  wrote:

> This is due to the presence of aerosols. Ironically, cleaning up our
> pollution has caused the planet to warm faster.
>
> Yes I thought it would be something like that. I recently heard there had
been a (slight) drop in global temperatures caused by increased pollution
(possibly over China?)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

On 16 November 2013 10:44, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:

>
> That is not a predicion that test the validity of a model. I can do the
> same with a program with then lines by adjusting three parameters.
>
> A real model would reproduce the evolution of ancient climates
> transitions, for example the initiation and evolution of the glacial era
> from well know paleoclimatic parameters, circulation of the oceans and
> shape of the continents, the solar cycles and the orbit of the earth the .
>
> Nut I'm  not talking about the prediction of the global parameters, (that
> ad hoc adjustment I can do it) . It must reproduce the changes in the ocean
> flows, the variations in extension of the polar ice caps,  not the mean
> temperature of the planet.
>
> The models are decades at least from reproducing that. Probably this may
> never will be possible.
>
> drop me a message back when this has been achieved.
>

Would you like that before or after the oceans swamp most of our farmland?

(PS I see you live nice and high above sea level. Talking the talk, eh? :)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

My own models and the one of star trekkers, Star warriors and in general
Sci-Fi aficionados  indicates that the most probable catastrophe is an
alien invasion in the next 100 years.

We have only one planet to live. So I will consider you a bunch of retarded
deniers and brainless morons  if you do not contribute compulsorily to the
creation of a

Rebel Alliance X-Wing
Squadron
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/simonkwan/crowdfunding-rebel-alliance-x-wing-squadron

The consensus is there. You are warned.

2013/11/15 LizR 

> On 16 November 2013 10:44, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:
>
>>
>> That is not a predicion that test the validity of a model. I can do the
>> same with a program with then lines by adjusting three parameters.
>>
>> A real model would reproduce the evolution of ancient climates
>> transitions, for example the initiation and evolution of the glacial era
>> from well know paleoclimatic parameters, circulation of the oceans and
>> shape of the continents, the solar cycles and the orbit of the earth the .
>>
>> Nut I'm  not talking about the prediction of the global parameters, (that
>> ad hoc adjustment I can do it) . It must reproduce the changes in the ocean
>> flows, the variations in extension of the polar ice caps,  not the mean
>> temperature of the planet.
>>
>> The models are decades at least from reproducing that. Probably this may
>> never will be possible.
>>
>> drop me a message back when this has been achieved.
>>
>
> Would you like that before or after the oceans swamp most of our farmland?
>
> (PS I see you live nice and high above sea level. Talking the talk, eh? :)
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

On 16 November 2013 11:13, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:

> My own models and the one of star trekkers, Star warriors and in general
> Sci-Fi aficionados  indicates that the most probable catastrophe is an
> alien invasion in the next 100 years.
>
> We have only one planet to live. So I will consider you a bunch of
> retarded deniers and brainless morons  if you do not contribute
> compulsorily to the creation of a
>
> Rebel Alliance X-Wing 
> Squadron
>
> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/simonkwan/crowdfunding-rebel-alliance-x-wing-squadron
>
> The consensus is there. You are warned.
>

Well my models are spot on. I have modelled quite a number of climate
change denier responses, and I generally find that when sarcasm, straw men
and blind insistence fail them, they fall back on ridicule. So far you have
hit every point on my graph.

Yet oddly enough all your comments *still* haven't stopped sea level rise
or melting glaciers or rising temperatures. Strange that. Maybe if you keep
them up long enough NASA will start recording a lower global temperature
and Mauna Kea will record less atmospheric CO2.

PS Have you considered changing your name to Alberto G. Canute?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

As i said before, it si worthless to talk with sectarian apocalipticists.
 Your ideological ancestors were the worst people of the modern times.  It
is no surprise that you lack the tiniest sense of humor.  You are a true
danger.


2013/11/15 LizR 

> On 16 November 2013 11:13, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:
>
>> My own models and the one of star trekkers, Star warriors and in general
>> Sci-Fi aficionados  indicates that the most probable catastrophe is an
>> alien invasion in the next 100 years.
>>
>> We have only one planet to live. So I will consider you a bunch of
>> retarded deniers and brainless morons  if you do not contribute
>> compulsorily to the creation of a
>>
>> Rebel Alliance X-Wing 
>> Squadron
>>
>> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/simonkwan/crowdfunding-rebel-alliance-x-wing-squadron
>>
>> The consensus is there. You are warned.
>>
>
> Well my models are spot on. I have modelled quite a number of climate
> change denier responses, and I generally find that when sarcasm, straw men
> and blind insistence fail them, they fall back on ridicule. So far you have
> hit every point on my graph.
>
> Yet oddly enough all your comments *still* haven't stopped sea level rise
> or melting glaciers or rising temperatures. Strange that. Maybe if you keep
> them up long enough NASA will start recording a lower global temperature
> and Mauna Kea will record less atmospheric CO2.
>
> PS Have you considered changing your name to Alberto G. Canute?
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness


On 11/15/2013 2:38 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
As i said before, it si worthless to talk with sectarian apocalipticists.  Your 
ideological ancestors were the worst people of the modern times.  It is no surprise that 
you lack the tiniest sense of humor.  You are a true danger. 


Alberto is just feeling peeved because his co-religionists can't burn scientists at the 
stake anymore.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

You have shown what you are and what you represent. I have nothing more to
say. You are your worst enemy.

I suspect that we have touched not only the beliefs, but the business of
some people here that live from big gobernment politics and ecoalarmist
demagogy.

2013/11/15 meekerdb 

>  On 11/15/2013 2:38 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
> As i said before, it si worthless to talk with sectarian apocalipticists.
>  Your ideological ancestors were the worst people of the modern times.  It
> is no surprise that you lack the tiniest sense of humor.  You are a true
> danger.
>
>
> Alberto is just feeling peeved because his co-religionists can't burn
> scientists at the stake anymore.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

On 16 November 2013 11:38, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:

> As i said before, it si worthless to talk with sectarian apocalipticists.
>  Your ideological ancestors were the worst people of the modern times.  It
> is no surprise that you lack the tiniest sense of humor.  You are a true
> danger.
>
> I responded to your humour with more humour, which you seem to have missed
- so who is missing a sense of humour, again?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

On 16 November 2013 11:57, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:

> You have shown what you are and what you represent. I have nothing more to
> say. You are your worst enemy.
>
> I suspect that we have touched not only the beliefs, but the business of
> some people here that live from big gobernment politics and ecoalarmist
> demagogy.
>
> If you can't win with facts, misrepresentation or sarcasm, out come the
insults.

So far, my climate denier models are spot on.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness


On 11/15/2013 3:16 PM, LizR wrote:
On 16 November 2013 11:57, Alberto G. Corona > wrote:


You have shown what you are and what you represent. I have nothing more to 
say. You
are your worst enemy.

I suspect that we have touched not only the beliefs, but the business of 
some people
here that live from big gobernment politics and ecoalarmist demagogy.

If you can't win with facts, misrepresentation or sarcasm, out come the insults.

So far, my climate denier models are spot on.


How many times does you model predict Alberto will post that he's not going to say 
anymore?  Just curious.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

On 16 November 2013 12:35, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 11/15/2013 3:16 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  So far, my climate denier models are spot on.
>
> How many times does you model predict Alberto will post that he's not
> going to say anymore?  Just curious.
>
> :-)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: Global warming silliness

Show me these models that are 0% accurate – that is very hard to achieve,
except in the land of polemics, which is where I suspect you reside.

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alberto G. Corona 
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 2:45 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness

2013/11/15 LizR 

So the measurements showing rising global temperatures and the noticeable
effects this is having, and the measured rise in CO2 since the industrial
revolution are irrelevant because the models aren't yet 100% accurate?

The models are 0% accurate.

The other aspects that you mention are flawed as well.

So let's sit on our hands and do nothing, just in case we make a better
world on the basis of false premises?

 Not at all. As I said before, I have my own shit to attend. but I don't
advocate to forbid you to do something for it. Feel free to do whatever you
want.  I encourage you to expend all your money in the "save the world" shit
with mekerdb and other like you in brotherhood and harmony together.  

Might even contribute to the movement. I will buy your next Documentary from
Al Gore et al. I definitively like scary movies.

Give me strength.

On 15 November 2013 23:11, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:

There is a model of the earth nucleus. It is very good. Why?  Because it
behaves like the real nucleus. It invert polarity every 14000 years I
believe, dont want to fire up the wikipedia to get the real digits. That is
why it is a good model.

Just like climate models parameter values have been inferred by matching
past data.

I selected this paragraph alone to show that you, in your obfuscation, don´t
understand the difference between predicion (or retrodiction) and tweking
for  predicting (or retrodict) nothing AT ALL. 

That is why I said that it is a waste of time to discuss the apocalypse with
the apocalipticists. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
Alberto. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: Global warming silliness

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 5:14 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness

>>To perform a fix on the climate, and I am giving the IPCC supporters the
benefit of the doubt, we must have abundant clean sources at the ready. We
need terawatts of clean, because gigawatts are insufficient. Some can be
replaced by higher efficiency homes and devices, and cars-but this will only
takes us so far.  Think terawatts, not negawatts, and what tech we are going
to use to replace the dirty? Faster please.

You ignore the potential easily realizable savings that can be achieved by
retro-fitting our existing buildings and homes. Thiis is truly the low
hanging fruit and the scale of potential on-going energy savings is huge.
For example 

Read report:
http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/electricpowernaturalgas/US_energy_effi
ciency/

The global consulting firm estimates that $520 billion in investments would
reduce U.S. non-transportation energy usage by 9.1 quadrillion BTUs by 2020
- roughly 23 percent of projected demand. As a result, the U.S. economy
would save more than $1.2 trillion and avoid the release of some 1.1
gigatons of annual greenhouse gases, an amount equal to replacing 1,000
conventional 500-megawatt coal-fired power plants with renewable energy.

Or the comparison given in the report "The reduction in energy use would
also result in the abatement of 1.1 gigatons of greenhouse-gas emissions
annually-the equivalent of taking the entire US fleet of passenger vehicles
and light trucks off the roads."

Achieving this kind of reduction in producing carbon dioxide and in annual
fossil energy consumption is not nibbling at the problem around the edges -
this represents the single largest and most important & immediate thing we
can do to change the picture on the ground. And is something that will need
to be done anyway. Doing this will increase the energy security (and
military and economic security as well) of the US by making our country much
leaner and able to prosper and live in comfort on far less energy - an
carbon footprint impact the equivalent of removing the entire fleet of cars
and light truck from the nation's roads and highways. You cannot get more
major impact than that.

Chris

-Original Message-
From: meekerdb 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Nov 14, 2013 7:23 pm
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/14/2013 4:20 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> Yes.
> 
> I proposed myself not to argue against sectarian apocalypticists because
that 
is a waste 
> of time, but honoring those of you that are not seduced by the 
> end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it movement, I will say something:

Alas, some people just can't be relied on.

> 
> Climatic models are bullshit. if you look at how they adjust parameters 
looking at the 
> climategate mails you will have no doubt. Starting from that funny way for

manufacturing 
> models, it is no surprise that they predict nothing as Telmo said.

First, the general circulation model developed at East Anglia is only one of
a 
dozen or 
more and they all predict increasing temperature - including the pencil and 
paper 
calculation of Arhennius.  In fact it's trivially easy to see that increased
CO2 
will 
raise the earth's temperature.  CO2 absorbs light energy in infrared bands
that 
are 
otherwise transparent.  Without CO2 the planet would be too cold for human 
habitation (as 
already realized by Fourier).  The difficulty in making accurate predictions
of 
how much 
the CO2 we're adding will raise temperatures comes from accounting for the 
positive 
feedback effect of water vapor.  Most models assume the world average
relative 
humidity 
will stay the same.  Some try to model ocean circulation from deep to
shallow 
and assume 
water vapor pressure stays in equilibrium with the ocean surface.  But these

don't make 
any difference to the long term conclusion.

> There is a model of the earth nucleus. It is very good. Why?  Because it 
behaves like 
> the real nucleus. It invert polarity every 14000 years I believe, dont
want to 
fire up 
> the wikipedia to get the real digits. That is why it is a good model.

Just like climate models parameter values have been inferred by matching
past 
data.

> 
> What would be a good test of a climatic model?. We know that at the
glacial 
eras started 
> when North and South America united by the istmus of Panama closed the
free 
water 
> movement between the atlantic and pacific. That changed the global water
flow 
regimes 
> and resulted in the two polar ice caps.
> 
> It is easy to configure the continents in the climate models and see what 
happens in 
> each configuration of the american continents. Why they dont try it?.
Becau

RE: Global warming silliness

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alberto G. Corona 
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 5:30 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness

>>The fantastic amount of subsidies to the solar energy (That not even
Germany will have enough budget to pay them) not only have destroyed the
familiar and industrial economy with such incredible amount of taxes. They
also have stopped further solar cell  research in the countries where these
subsidies have been granted.

References?

I leave as an exercise to figure out why that has happened. It is quite
easy. But I guess that some people here well versed in QM and cosmology will
be unable to figure it out.

2013/11/15 Telmo Menezes 

Hi Russell,

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Russell Standish
 wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:09:18PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Russell Standish
>>  wrote:
>>
>> > The good news is that the figures I've seen is that its not such a
>> > tremendous cost after all.
>>
>> I am very interested in this. Could you be more specific? How can this
>> be? Was there some breakthrough in sustainable sources that increased
>> their efficiency?
>
> The following is an article dealing with the economics in Australia of
> PV vs coal fired stations
>
>
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/renewables-now-cheaper-than-coal-and-gas-in-
australia-62268
>
> And here is one for wind power:
>
>
http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/rising-risk-prices-out-new-coa
lfired-plants-report-20130207-2e0s4.html
>
> These figure also do not include the existing carbon price of $20 per
tonne.
>
> Existing fossil fuel generators will continue for a while, though, of
> course, particularly as renewables have not yet solved the baseload
> supply problem. Vanadium batteries may be good for that.

Thanks for this. I hope it works.
Reading the articles I have a feeling that this is more related to
banks fearing investments in non-clean energy that could be subject to
increasingly high taxes -- even though it appears that the Australian
conservatives are not inclined to do that. I have no doubt that the
technology is improving and I hope it does, but I would be more
convinced if they addressed the hard numbers on the energy efficiency,
sans current economical incentives, be they regulation or market
conditions. Because I believe that those are the ones that will count
in the long term.

Part of the reason for my worry is that I saw heavy subsidising of
wind farms destroy the industry in my home country (Portugal). The
energy bill there is now about 60% taxes, to maintain the wind farms.
Keeping your house warm in the winter is too expensive, even for the
upper middle class.

>> >> > Obviously fossil fuel will run out anyway, so even without climate
change
>> >> > we'd have to do something.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, but that something we have to do is very different depending on
>> >> whether or not we have to cut CO2 emissions and, more importantly, one
>> >> of the path leads to immense human suffering.
>> >>
>> >
>> > The point is whether we do something, or do nothing, energy costs
>> > _will_ rise. Yes this _will_ lead to human suffering, either way. We
>> > can either choose to pay a bit more now, and have less costs later, or
>> > pay less now, and have steeper rises later.
>>
>> I agree that energy costs will rise and this is a very serious problem
>> that we need to face. If you don't have to worry about CO2 so much,
>> it's easier and less painful -- the more expensive fossil fuels
>> become, the more economic incentive there will be for renewable
>> sources. In this scenario we can retain economic freedom, which is
>> highly correlated with prosperity.
>>
>> > A 10 or 20% energy cost increase to hasten decarbonisation by a decade
>> > will save many billions of dollars of geo-engineering, or evironmental
>> > restoration down the track.
>>
>> Are you aware of geo-engineering proposals that would be very cheap?
>>
>
> Nothing earth-scale will be cheap, or easy to understand all the
> consequences. Ultimately, it will need to come down to a cost-benefit
> analysis, factoring in the unknowns as some kind of risk factor.

But if the technology break-throughs are real, we don't even have to
worry all that much, maybe. There will be a lot of money to be made in
moving to sustainable sources. Pushes for regulation make me suspect
that the technology is not there yet. In which case I agree with you.

>> > Seems like quite an astute investment to
>> > me.

RE: Global warming silliness

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alberto G. Corona 
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 5:33 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness

>> I mean, the subsidies are for solar energy production.

References

2013/11/15 Alberto G. Corona 

The fantastic amount of subsidies to the solar energy (That not even Germany
will have enough budget to pay them) not only have destroyed the familiar
and industrial economy with such incredible amount of taxes. They also have
stopped further solar cell  research in the countries where these subsidies
have been granted.

I leave as an exercise to figure out why that has happened. It is quite
easy. But I guess that some people here well versed in QM and cosmology will
be unable to figure it out.

2013/11/15 Telmo Menezes 

Hi Russell,

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Russell Standish
 wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:09:18PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Russell Standish
>>  wrote:
>>
>> > The good news is that the figures I've seen is that its not such a
>> > tremendous cost after all.
>>
>> I am very interested in this. Could you be more specific? How can this
>> be? Was there some breakthrough in sustainable sources that increased
>> their efficiency?
>
> The following is an article dealing with the economics in Australia of
> PV vs coal fired stations
>
>
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/renewables-now-cheaper-than-coal-and-gas-in-
australia-62268
>
> And here is one for wind power:
>
>
http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/rising-risk-prices-out-new-coa
lfired-plants-report-20130207-2e0s4.html
>
> These figure also do not include the existing carbon price of $20 per
tonne.
>
> Existing fossil fuel generators will continue for a while, though, of
> course, particularly as renewables have not yet solved the baseload
> supply problem. Vanadium batteries may be good for that.

Thanks for this. I hope it works.
Reading the articles I have a feeling that this is more related to
banks fearing investments in non-clean energy that could be subject to
increasingly high taxes -- even though it appears that the Australian
conservatives are not inclined to do that. I have no doubt that the
technology is improving and I hope it does, but I would be more
convinced if they addressed the hard numbers on the energy efficiency,
sans current economical incentives, be they regulation or market
conditions. Because I believe that those are the ones that will count
in the long term.

Part of the reason for my worry is that I saw heavy subsidising of
wind farms destroy the industry in my home country (Portugal). The
energy bill there is now about 60% taxes, to maintain the wind farms.
Keeping your house warm in the winter is too expensive, even for the
upper middle class.

>> >> > Obviously fossil fuel will run out anyway, so even without climate
change
>> >> > we'd have to do something.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, but that something we have to do is very different depending on
>> >> whether or not we have to cut CO2 emissions and, more importantly, one
>> >> of the path leads to immense human suffering.
>> >>
>> >
>> > The point is whether we do something, or do nothing, energy costs
>> > _will_ rise. Yes this _will_ lead to human suffering, either way. We
>> > can either choose to pay a bit more now, and have less costs later, or
>> > pay less now, and have steeper rises later.
>>
>> I agree that energy costs will rise and this is a very serious problem
>> that we need to face. If you don't have to worry about CO2 so much,
>> it's easier and less painful -- the more expensive fossil fuels
>> become, the more economic incentive there will be for renewable
>> sources. In this scenario we can retain economic freedom, which is
>> highly correlated with prosperity.
>>
>> > A 10 or 20% energy cost increase to hasten decarbonisation by a decade
>> > will save many billions of dollars of geo-engineering, or evironmental
>> > restoration down the track.
>>
>> Are you aware of geo-engineering proposals that would be very cheap?
>>
>
> Nothing earth-scale will be cheap, or easy to understand all the
> consequences. Ultimately, it will need to come down to a cost-benefit
> analysis, factoring in the unknowns as some kind of risk factor.

But if the technology break-throughs are real, we don't even have to
worry all that much, maybe. There will be a lot of money to be made in
moving to sustainable sources. Pushes for regulation make me suspect
that the technology is not there yet. In which case

RE: Global warming silliness