subject:"Re\: \[Vo\]\:global warming\?"

I assume that the insurance companies you mention are only interested in short 
term predictions.  These can be reasonably constructed by direct projection of 
past data and locally known factors.  They are in really big trouble if they 
are planning far into the future unless, by shear luck, their models match the 
local climate.

From what you are describing, it appears that the companies are only looking 
ahead one season which is weather instead of climate prediction.

How would a startup company have the knowledge to generate a climate model of 
any real use in short order?   Do you know whether or not those guys have hired 
significant talent from the main modeling organizations?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 1:32 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?



On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:



I'm not all that interested in passing judgement on the integrity of the 
majority of climate scientists.  I'm interested in seeing if there's real 
science behind this constantly-changing thesis.  My conclusion at this time is: 
 NO.  What is there has been driven more by politics than science.  






Climate Corporation is a startup in San Francisco, not far from where I work, 
that use climate models to price insurance policies for farmers that want to 
insure their crops.  You should definitely warn these guys that they're in for 
a huge loss, because there's no science behind what they're doing:


https://www.climate.com/



Alternatively, if you think you can time things right, you should take out a 
short position on Monsanto, their parent company, for their blockheadedness in 
acquiring them.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

Eric, I have seen graphs of the predicted global temperatures from several 
different models and they all show a rapid increase during the questionable 
period.  Not one of them indicate that a pause was conceivable.  They would 
have thrown a skeptic out of the office had he suggested that a pause was 
remotely possible.  Look into this if you do not believe ita good first 
start is the latest BBC article in their science section.

I believe like you that most of these guys really work hard at building their 
models.  The problem is that the climate is an extraordinarily complex system.  
Forcing inputs occur on a daily, monthly, yearly, and most likely other cyclic 
periods that are not well understood.  The interactions between the various 
component systems also is quite complicated and not well understood.  Every 
couple of years another major factor is uncovered and consequently added to the 
models in an effort to reduce errors.

If you evaluate the performance of these guys relative to the state of the art, 
they get an A regardless of how well their models perform since there is no 
perfect model to compare them against.  No one really knows how well the 
climate can be predicted by the most perfect model that man can devise.  I 
venture to guess that the present state of the art is a long way removed from 
that ideal, but that is my opinion only and it is based upon the track record 
that I have observed over the years.  I suspect that a model can be adjusted 
that will include the present pause, but no one can guess whether or not the 
expected behavior after the pause is completed will be accurately predicted.

You appear to want to defer to the experts a bit too much Eric.  I suggest that 
you use some of your excellent capabilities to question there performance 
against the known standard and insist that they measure up.  After all, the 
advice that these guys is offering could damage the US and world economies when 
misused by politicians.   It is quite important that they get it right.

Dave



 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 2:06 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?



On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:52 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


Since the pause was 100% not predicted and instead should have been a more 
rapid rise, how much more in error could they be?


How confident are you of this assertion?
 
How on earth could you or anybody else believe that they will be correct in 
their predictions over a 100 year period with this sort of track record?   Are 
you confident that they now have all the correct variables under control? 


Dave, I think you misunderstand my position.  It's not that climate scientists 
should be given a free pass.  It's also not that they haven't had a hard time 
predicting near- and medium-term trends in climate change; I wouldn't be 
surprised if they have had difficulties in this regard.  I'm saying something 
more subtle than that:

I believe it would take a lot of reading of actual journal papers and following 
of specific models to even be able to begin to evaluate the success of the 
field.  What if there are some climate scientists working quietly off in a 
corner that are doing a very good job of accurately characterizing things up to 
now within certain ranges?  That kind of detail would be all too easy to miss 
if one's only source of information about the field is the evening news.
I strongly suspect that no climate skeptics here have made such an effort.
Because there are surely some smart people in the field (as there are in any 
field), I would be wary of betting *against* some accumulation of real 
knowledge in the field.  I'm sure there are people from Harvard, Oxford, 
Cambridge, U. of Georgia, etc., that study climate science.  Perhaps the only 
statements the careful ones can make about long-term climate change are vague 
ones that do not tell us much about specific temperatures.  I wouldn't know, 
because I haven't followed the journals and the specific models (per point 1, 
above).

So no free pass is needed.  Just more than a little wariness to pass judgment 
on a field I haven't followed closely, given the great amount of effort I've 
had to spend just to start to get up to speed on a different field in the last 
couple of years (physics).


Eric

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-26 Thread Axil Axil

Loss of ice is the key factor. The climate won't change much until most
of  the ice is gone.


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:52 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Eric, all you have to do is to read about the current long lasting pause
 in warming along with the statement from these guys that this pause might
 last until 2025.  Since the pause was 100% not predicted and instead should
 have been a more rapid rise, how much more in error could they be?  Of
 course, with hindsight, they suggest that there is an, until now, unknown
 Atlantic current effect which explains the pause.

 How on earth could you or anybody else believe that they will be correct
 in their predictions over a 100 year period with this sort of track
 record?   Are you confident that they now have all the correct variables
 under control?With the sort of error that has arisen, it is entirely
 possible that they have missed the boat completely and we might actually be
 heading into a cooling period.

 They do not merit a free pass like some seem to imply.  Also, it does not
 take an advanced degree or the requirement that a skeptic be a
 climatologist to evaluate their work.  Their model outputs are their
 contact to the public and decision makers and anyone can observe how poorly
 their predictions match the real world data.

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 12:56 am
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?

   On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com
 wrote:

  This doesn't mean that they need to be able to forecast tomorrow's
 lottery numbers ( in effect) but we should expect that they can create
 predictive graphs that follow emerging reality with a reasonable fit - and
 frankly, that's where the problem seems to be.


  Given your acquaintance with the field and familiarity with its complete
 failure to predict anything, I am confident that you and others will be
 able to draw to our attention to a persistent pattern of failed predictions
 that demonstrate, beyond a handful of high-profile news-makers, a chronic
 record of a science-that-is-not-a-science.  I'm sure you can help us to
 better understand the poor state of the field by characterizing the error
 of climate science with some specificity -- for example, no climate model
 has had a record of predicting the three-year moving average temperature to
 better than 60 percent (10 percent above random) when run over a period of
 more than 10 years (this is an example that I pulled out of thin air).  To
 demonstrate the failure of a field, obviously we will not be able to do
 very much with a handful of prominent failures.  We must show that the all
 of the work of the field, taken together, is as good as rolling dice for
 helping us to understand long term climate change.

  I would be very interested in some quantification of the failure of
 climate science.

  Eric

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-26 Thread Kevin O'Malley

Thanks.  Those are exactly the kinds of opportunities I've been looking
for.  Have you put YOUR money where your mouth is in terms of LENR?  I
doubt it.


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 I'm not all that interested in passing judgement on the integrity of the
 majority of climate scientists.  I'm interested in seeing if there's real
 science behind this constantly-changing thesis.  My conclusion at this time
 is:  NO.  What is there has been driven more by politics than science.


 Climate Corporation is a startup in San Francisco, not far from where I
 work, that use climate models to price insurance policies for farmers that
 want to insure their crops.  You should definitely warn these guys that
 they're in for a huge loss, because there's no science behind what they're
 doing:

 https://www.climate.com/

 Alternatively, if you think you can time things right, you should take out
 a short position on Monsanto, their parent company, for their
 blockheadedness in acquiring them.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-26 Thread Jojo Iznart

How do you know that my friend?  Do you have your own Climate Model?

It's statements like these that make me conclude Axil does not really know what 
he is talking about.  He keeps spewing statements like these which no one 
challenges.

Look, the latent heat of fusion of water is 334kJ/kg, while the latent heat of 
Vaporization of water is 2260kJ/kg.  This means that water turning to steam 
will absorb more than 6.7 times of heat.  Why would water melting be the 
critical factor?




Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:37 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?


  Loss of ice is the key factor. The climate won't change much until most of  
the ice is gone.

RE: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-26 Thread Chris Zell

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/18/newsbytes-climate-scientists-turn-skeptical-as-climate-predictions-fail/

Climate changes all the time. Hence, denial of climate change is nonsense.

Yes, graphs show an upward tilt in warming - however, the change is not as 
catastrophic as many predicted.

Even without the above, the lack of predictions a few years into the future ( 
as Jed reported) is a failure in itself - or should cause the field to be 
questioned as to its practical utility.

I think the shoe should be on the other foot as to predictions.  Let's see what 
past climate predictions have proved most accurate over a reasonable time scale 
that does not involve a huge percentage of a normal lifespan. Referring to all 
the work and long term climate change creates a strawman.  As Keynes once 
said about economics, in the long term, we are all dead.


From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:56 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Chris Zell 
chrisz...@wetmtv.commailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote:

This doesn't mean that they need to be able to forecast tomorrow's lottery 
numbers ( in effect) but we should expect that they can create predictive 
graphs that follow emerging reality with a reasonable fit - and frankly, that's 
where the problem seems to be.

Given your acquaintance with the field and familiarity with its complete 
failure to predict anything, I am confident that you and others will be able to 
draw to our attention to a persistent pattern of failed predictions that 
demonstrate, beyond a handful of high-profile news-makers, a chronic record of 
a science-that-is-not-a-science.  I'm sure you can help us to better understand 
the poor state of the field by characterizing the error of climate science with 
some specificity -- for example, no climate model has had a record of 
predicting the three-year moving average temperature to better than 60 percent 
(10 percent above random) when run over a period of more than 10 years (this 
is an example that I pulled out of thin air).  To demonstrate the failure of a 
field, obviously we will not be able to do very much with a handful of 
prominent failures.  We must show that the all of the work of the field, taken 
together, is as good as rolling dice for helping us to understand long term 
climate change.

I would be very interested in some quantification of the failure of climate 
science.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

Of course, referencing wattsupwiththat for anthropogenic global warming
facts is like learning about special relativity from a republican CEO.
More or less your going to get dis-information.

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/18/newsbytes-climate-scientists-turn-skeptical-as-climate-predictions-fail/

Climate changes all the time. Hence, denial of climate change is
nonsense.

Yes, graphs show an upward tilt in warming - however, the change is not
as catastrophic as many predicted.

Even without the above, the lack of predictions a few years into the
future ( as Jed reported) is a failure in itself - or should cause the
field to be questioned as to its practical utility.

I think the shoe should be on the other foot as to predictions. Let's see
what past climate predictions have proved most accurate over a reasonable
time scale that does not involve a huge percentage of a normal
lifespan. Referring to all the work and long term climate change
creates a strawman. As Keynes once said about economics, in the long
term, we are all dead.

--
*From:* Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:56 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com

*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:global warming?

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com
wrote:

This doesn't mean that they need to be able to forecast tomorrow's
lottery numbers ( in effect) but we should expect that they can create
predictive graphs that follow emerging reality with a reasonable fit - and
frankly, that's where the problem seems to be.

Given your acquaintance with the field and familiarity with its complete
failure to predict anything, I am confident that you and others will be
able to draw to our attention to a persistent pattern of failed predictions
that demonstrate, beyond a handful of high-profile news-makers, a chronic
record of a science-that-is-not-a-science. I'm sure you can help us to
better understand the poor state of the field by characterizing the error
of climate science with some specificity -- for example, no climate model
has had a record of predicting the three-year moving average temperature to
better than 60 percent (10 percent above random) when run over a period of
more than 10 years (this is an example that I pulled out of thin air). To
demonstrate the failure of a field, obviously we will not be able to do
very much with a handful of prominent failures. We must show that the all
of the work of the field, taken together, is as good as rolling dice for
helping us to understand long term climate change.

I would be very interested in some quantification of the failure of
climate science.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-26 Thread Eric Walker

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:36 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Eric, I have seen graphs of the predicted global temperatures from several
 different models and they all show a rapid increase during the questionable
 period.  Not one of them indicate that a pause was conceivable.


The second statement -- Not one of them indicate that a pause was
conceivable -- this is a hard proposition to evaluate.  There are no doubt
many hundreds or thousands of climate models that have been proposed over
the years.  To evaluate whether none of them predicted the absence of a
rapid increase, ultimately you will need to have intimate knowledge of
statements made in the following publications (and probably others) over a
period of decades:

http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/journals.html

You will need to be conversant with units that are very different than ones
in other fields and will have to have a solid working knowledge of the
relevant physics, chemistry and biology.  If you have not personally made
the effort to keep on top of the specific models proposed in these journals
and the highly technical statements that have been made and debated ad
infinitum, you will need to place trust in someone else to do this homework
for you.  You will be a babe in the woods and will need to call upon
someone to get you out of the bind of knowing little about climate science,
like all of the rest of us non-specialists.

To get yourself out of this bind, you can choose the BBC, or the evening
news, or infographics published on a Web site.  Some will choose to put
their trust in inveterate climate skeptics whose funding is murky and
agenda unclear (this is a little like going to Huizenga or Taubes for
information about LENR).  Back of the envelope arguments about the inherent
difficulty of predicting things with such a chaotic system are helpful for
getting a zeroth order approximation, but they take us little further than
that.

You appear to want to defer to the experts a bit too much Eric.


It is no doubt true that I have been guilty of putting too much trust in
experts at times.  I am grateful, though, to be far more skeptical than you
or others here in this particular instance.  I do not trust the BBC or the
New York Times or Fox News to provide more than vague sense of where things
are.  Ultimately I will only put trust in people who have invested the time
and effort to really understand everything that is being said and
demonstrated a clear knowledge of the minutiae, whether they are climate
scientists or investigative journalists.  I am grateful that my position
could not be easier to defend in this instance.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

Please note that I pointed out that I have not seen one graph predicting the 
long term pause.   Of course I have not reviewed every single model output 
since that would be a useless exercise.

Which predictions should we depend upon?  Those of the IPCC likely carry the 
most weight and they show no pause.  I assume that the next versions of their 
models will be modified to reflect the new data, but you must admit that this 
is hindsight and not prediction as such.  When will the next major error be 
uncovered?  Are you 100% confident that we will not be entering into a cooling 
period during the next 20 years?

I can not blindly and quietly sit by and accept the clearly poor performance of 
a group of assumed experts that are causing immense damage to our standard of 
living.   They are merely high priests of a new religion that is dangerous and 
destructive.  Everyone has the ability to evaluate their model's output and 
should realize that it is inaccurate.  Why should we not use the good senses 
that God gave us?

Lets put an end to this discussion since it is obvious that we will not come to 
a resolution that is acceptable to both of us.  Everyone is entitled to their 
beliefs and that is good for science in the long run.



 Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 12:03 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?



On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:36 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


Eric, I have seen graphs of the predicted global temperatures from several 
different models and they all show a rapid increase during the questionable 
period.  Not one of them indicate that a pause was conceivable. 


The second statement -- Not one of them indicate that a pause was conceivable 
-- this is a hard proposition to evaluate.  There are no doubt many hundreds or 
thousands of climate models that have been proposed over the years.  To 
evaluate whether none of them predicted the absence of a rapid increase, 
ultimately you will need to have intimate knowledge of statements made in the 
following publications (and probably others) over a period of decades:


http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/journals.html


You will need to be conversant with units that are very different than ones in 
other fields and will have to have a solid working knowledge of the relevant 
physics, chemistry and biology.  If you have not personally made the effort to 
keep on top of the specific models proposed in these journals and the highly 
technical statements that have been made and debated ad infinitum, you will 
need to place trust in someone else to do this homework for you.  You will be a 
babe in the woods and will need to call upon someone to get you out of the bind 
of knowing little about climate science, like all of the rest of us 
non-specialists.


To get yourself out of this bind, you can choose the BBC, or the evening news, 
or infographics published on a Web site.  Some will choose to put their trust 
in inveterate climate skeptics whose funding is murky and agenda unclear (this 
is a little like going to Huizenga or Taubes for information about LENR).  Back 
of the envelope arguments about the inherent difficulty of predicting things 
with such a chaotic system are helpful for getting a zeroth order 
approximation, but they take us little further than that.


You appear to want to defer to the experts a bit too much Eric.



It is no doubt true that I have been guilty of putting too much trust in 
experts at times.  I am grateful, though, to be far more skeptical than you or 
others here in this particular instance.  I do not trust the BBC or the New 
York Times or Fox News to provide more than vague sense of where things are.  
Ultimately I will only put trust in people who have invested the time and 
effort to really understand everything that is being said and demonstrated a 
clear knowledge of the minutiae, whether they are climate scientists or 
investigative journalists.  I am grateful that my position could not be easier 
to defend in this instance.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-26 Thread Eric Walker

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Lets put an end to this discussion since it is obvious that we will not
 come to a resolution that is acceptable to both of us.  Everyone is
 entitled to their beliefs and that is good for science in the long run.


I actually don't think our positions are that far part.  We're just
debating some secondary details.  As I've said on two previous occasions, I
don't think anyone should get a free check, climate scientists or anyone
else.  I'm just urging humility.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-26 Thread Axil Axil

Ice is melting and feeding the deep ocean currents that rise every few
decades to cool off the coasts.

Sea level rise is the simple indicator that marks the point of disaster.
Coastal cities will flood as the ice melts. When all the ice is gone, that
is when the climate is in big trouble. The temperature of the oceans
controls the temperature of the atmosphere. The melting of the ice is the
factor that introduces the oscillations in the climate.

If you put a glass of ice in an oven, the water in the glass will stay at
freezing until the ice melts. When all the ice is gone, the water will
begin to heat on its way to boiling.


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Please note that I pointed out that* I *have not seen one graph
 predicting the long term pause.   Of course I have not reviewed every
 single model output since that would be a useless exercise.

 Which predictions should we depend upon?  Those of the IPCC likely carry
 the most weight and they show no pause.  I assume that the next versions of
 their models will be modified to reflect the new data, but you must admit
 that this is hindsight and not prediction as such.  When will the next
 major error be uncovered?  Are you 100% confident that we will not be
 entering into a cooling period during the next 20 years?

 I can not blindly and quietly sit by and accept the clearly poor
 performance of a group of assumed experts that are causing immense damage
 to our standard of living.   They are merely high priests of a new religion
 that is dangerous and destructive.  Everyone has the ability to evaluate
 their model's output and should realize that it is inaccurate.  Why should
 we not use the good senses that God gave us?

 Lets put an end to this discussion since it is obvious that we will not
 come to a resolution that is acceptable to both of us.  Everyone is
 entitled to their beliefs and that is good for science in the long run.


  Dave


  -Original Message-
 From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 12:03 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?

   On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:36 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 wrote:

 Eric, I have seen graphs of the predicted global temperatures from
 several different models and they all show a rapid increase during the
 questionable period.  Not one of them indicate that a pause was
 conceivable.


  The second statement -- Not one of them indicate that a pause was
 conceivable -- this is a hard proposition to evaluate.  There are no doubt
 many hundreds or thousands of climate models that have been proposed over
 the years.  To evaluate whether none of them predicted the absence of a
 rapid increase, ultimately you will need to have intimate knowledge of
 statements made in the following publications (and probably others) over a
 period of decades:

  http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/journals.html

  You will need to be conversant with units that are very different than
 ones in other fields and will have to have a solid working knowledge of the
 relevant physics, chemistry and biology.  If you have not personally made
 the effort to keep on top of the specific models proposed in these journals
 and the highly technical statements that have been made and debated ad
 infinitum, you will need to place trust in someone else to do this homework
 for you.  You will be a babe in the woods and will need to call upon
 someone to get you out of the bind of knowing little about climate science,
 like all of the rest of us non-specialists.

  To get yourself out of this bind, you can choose the BBC, or the evening
 news, or infographics published on a Web site.  Some will choose to put
 their trust in inveterate climate skeptics whose funding is murky and
 agenda unclear (this is a little like going to Huizenga or Taubes for
 information about LENR).  Back of the envelope arguments about the inherent
 difficulty of predicting things with such a chaotic system are helpful for
 getting a zeroth order approximation, but they take us little further than
 that.

  You appear to want to defer to the experts a bit too much Eric.


  It is no doubt true that I have been guilty of putting too much trust in
 experts at times.  I am grateful, though, to be far more skeptical than you
 or others here in this particular instance.  I do not trust the BBC or the
 New York Times or Fox News to provide more than vague sense of where things
 are.  Ultimately I will only put trust in people who have invested the time
 and effort to really understand everything that is being said and
 demonstrated a clear knowledge of the minutiae, whether they are climate
 scientists or investigative journalists.  I am grateful that my position
 could not be easier to defend in this instance.

  Eric

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

Sounds good to me my friend.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 2:08 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?



On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


Lets put an end to this discussion since it is obvious that we will not come to 
a resolution that is acceptable to both of us.  Everyone is entitled to their 
beliefs and that is good for science in the long run.




I actually don't think our positions are that far part.  We're just debating 
some secondary details.  As I've said on two previous occasions, I don't think 
anyone should get a free check, climate scientists or anyone else.  I'm just 
urging humility.


Eric

RE: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-26 Thread Chris Zell

I expect experts to produce hard results that verify their status as experts. 
 Otherwise, it starts to resemble theology.  It looks similar to economists who 
can't play the stock market or psychologists who can't predict parolee behavior 
above common sense.

I see two broad dangers in climate exaggerations. First, they may be pushing 
nations towards more development of nuclear energy - which may be dangerous, 
long term. Secondly, the legitimate concern over climate appears to be hyped up 
above other threats to humans.

I'm more worried about vanishing bees and the fact that the Western world has 
lost a widely agreed upon program for economic growth.  Keynesian ideas have 
failed leaving us open to war, scarcity and hopelessness. The otherwise noble 
trend towards renewables makes this lack worse as high paying jobs with fossil 
fuels are replaced by temp positions.

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

Axil, There is plenty of reason the believe that the earth is on an overall 
warming cycle.   We can be fairly confident that one day it will reverse and we 
will be facing a new ice age since this has happened over and over again 
according to the best historical measurements.  No doubt that polar ice 
contributes to the process along with countless other natural and man made 
phenomena.

When the next ice age begins is clearly debatable and I hope that we have many 
years before that devastating event comes upon us.  So far I have not heard a 
great deal of noise from the global warming crowd suggesting that the current 
warming period will encourage the return of the cold that is so dangerous to 
our existence.   It is only a matter of time before this becomes a rallying cry 
of that group of alarmists.  They will get my attention at that point provided 
their models begin to demonstrate accurate predictions without needing serious 
corrections every few years.

We should resist the urge to put our lives and economies into the hands of this 
group until and if their predictions can be shown to be trustworthy.  It may 
well turn out that what they are attempting is intractable and not subject to 
accurate modeling.   What they contend to be caused by man might merely be a 
natural consequence of the earths response to solar and cosmic driving forces.  
Sometimes it is very difficult to separate cause and effect.

The development of LENR systems will come around soon and that will rapidly 
reduce the dependence upon fossil fuels and additional warming gas releases 
needed to supply our energy future demands.   Lets reserve our concerns about 
what may or may not happen in 100 years under the current conditions and 
realize that our species has been quite adaptable in the past and will find a 
solution to any problems that arise.   The scientific understanding that will 
develop during that period will appear as magic to us. 

Dave 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 2:13 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?



Ice is melting and feeding the deep ocean currents that rise every few decades 
to cool off the coasts. 


Sea level rise is the simple indicator that marks the point of disaster. 
Coastal cities will flood as the ice melts. When all the ice is gone, that is 
when the climate is in big trouble. The temperature of the oceans controls the 
temperature of the atmosphere. The melting of the ice is the factor that 
introduces the oscillations in the climate.


If you put a glass of ice in an oven, the water in the glass will stay at 
freezing until the ice melts. When all the ice is gone, the water will begin to 
heat on its way to boiling. 




On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Please note that I pointed out that I have not seen one graph predicting the 
long term pause.   Of course I have not reviewed every single model output 
since that would be a useless exercise.

Which predictions should we depend upon?  Those of the IPCC likely carry the 
most weight and they show no pause.  I assume that the next versions of their 
models will be modified to reflect the new data, but you must admit that this 
is hindsight and not prediction as such.  When will the next major error be 
uncovered?  Are you 100% confident that we will not be entering into a cooling 
period during the next 20 years?

I can not blindly and quietly sit by and accept the clearly poor performance of 
a group of assumed experts that are causing immense damage to our standard of 
living.   They are merely high priests of a new religion that is dangerous and 
destructive.  Everyone has the ability to evaluate their model's output and 
should realize that it is inaccurate.  Why should we not use the good senses 
that God gave us?

Lets put an end to this discussion since it is obvious that we will not come to 
a resolution that is acceptable to both of us.  Everyone is entitled to their 
beliefs and that is good for science in the long run.



 Dave

 

 


-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 12:03 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?





On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:36 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


Eric, I have seen graphs of the predicted global temperatures from several 
different models and they all show a rapid increase during the questionable 
period.  Not one of them indicate that a pause was conceivable. 


The second statement -- Not one of them indicate that a pause was conceivable 
-- this is a hard proposition to evaluate.  There are no doubt many hundreds or 
thousands of climate models that have been proposed over the years.  To 
evaluate whether none of them predicted the absence of a rapid increase, 
ultimately you will need to have intimate knowledge of statements made in the 
following

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

I was reading last week's Science magazine and they had an paper that talks
about the new finding that the Atlantic ocean was trapping much more heat
than expected.They conclude that the leveling out of temperature rise
is due to this.   It's a pretty compelling science finding.
What they found are that currents in the Atlantic are moving much faster
than normal and that was caused by a change in salinity from fresh water
melts.   The faster currents are pulling more of the hot surface waters
down to 1000m or more.   This gives the appearance of cooling global
temperatures and giving the stair step in land/atmosphere temperature rise.
  This current reverses every 30 years, so they expect the shelf to
continue for another 10 years after which the temperatures should rise very
quickly with a very sharp slope.   Even though it looks like we are on a
step that doesn't mean global average temperatures have stopped rising.
 It's just that they are not rising as quickly as theory predict.   Last
year was still the hottest ever recorded in the history of mankind.
http://www.climate.gov.   With the new information,  about the Atlantic
currents It shouldn't take the atmospheric modelers to long before the
models are corrected.

One concern that is related has to do with the methane clathrate found on
the Arctic sea floor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate

As the Arctic ocean warms and warm currents circulate that heat even more,
is that it could rapidly increase methane levels.   Already scientists have
seen more and more methane seepage bubbling up from the Arctic ocean
waters.Methane has 25x the heat trapping ability that CO2 has so a
little goes a long way.   There is a lot of methane trapped on the ocean
floor that only needs a 0.1C change to make it sublimate into methane gas.
 If enough happens, it could trigger a run-away feedback loop where
methane's contribution adds more to global temperature wise, which heats
the oceans more, which sublimates more methane clathrate.  At the same
time, evaporation of surface waters will increase adding more water vapor
(also a potent greenhouse gas)  to the atmosphere.

It's something to think about.






On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:57 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Axil, There is plenty of reason the believe that the earth is on an
 overall warming cycle.   We can be fairly confident that one day it will
 reverse and we will be facing a new ice age since this has happened over
 and over again according to the best historical measurements.  No doubt
 that polar ice contributes to the process along with countless other
 natural and man made phenomena.

 When the next ice age begins is clearly debatable and I hope that we have
 many years before that devastating event comes upon us.  So far I have not
 heard a great deal of noise from the global warming crowd suggesting that
 the current warming period will encourage the return of the cold that is so
 dangerous to our existence.   It is only a matter of time before this
 becomes a rallying cry of that group of alarmists.  They will get my
 attention at that point provided their models begin to demonstrate accurate
 predictions without needing serious corrections every few years.

 We should resist the urge to put our lives and economies into the hands of
 this group until and if their predictions can be shown to be trustworthy.
 It may well turn out that what they are attempting is intractable and not
 subject to accurate modeling.   What they contend to be caused by man might
 merely be a natural consequence of the earths response to solar and cosmic
 driving forces.  Sometimes it is very difficult to separate cause and
 effect.

 The development of LENR systems will come around soon and that will
 rapidly reduce the dependence upon fossil fuels and additional warming gas
 releases needed to supply our energy future demands.   Lets reserve our
 concerns about what may or may not happen in 100 years under the current
 conditions and realize that our species has been quite adaptable in the
 past and will find a solution to any problems that arise.   The scientific
 understanding that will develop during that period will appear as magic to
 us.

 Dave


  -Original Message-
 From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 2:13 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?

  Ice is melting and feeding the deep ocean currents that rise every few
 decades to cool off the coasts.

  Sea level rise is the simple indicator that marks the point of disaster.
 Coastal cities will flood as the ice melts. When all the ice is gone, that
 is when the climate is in big trouble. The temperature of the oceans
 controls the temperature of the atmosphere. The melting of the ice is the
 factor that introduces the oscillations in the climate.

  If you put a glass of ice in an oven, the water in the glass will stay
 at freezing until the ice melts. When all

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-26 Thread Axil Axil

http://phys.org/news/2014-08-southwest-megadrought-century.html

No matter how it is caused, the residences of the west coast will need to
adapt.

Due to global warming, scientists say, the chances of the southwestern
United States experiencing a decadelong drought is at least 50 percent, and
the chances of a megadrought – one that lasts up to 35 years – ranges
from 20 to 50 percent over the next century.

The study by Cornell, University of Arizona and U.S. Geological Survey
researchers will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American
Meteorological Society's *Journal of Climate*.

For the southwestern U.S., I'm not optimistic about avoiding real
megadroughts, said Toby Ault, Cornell assistant professor of earth and
atmospheric sciences and lead author of the paper. As we add greenhouse
gases into the atmosphere – and we haven't put the brakes on stopping this
– we are weighting the dice for megadrought.


 Ault said that the West and Southwest must look for mitigation strategies
to cope with looming long-drought scenarios. This will be worse than
anything seen during the last 2,000 years and would pose unprecedented
challenges to water resources in the region, he said.




On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:57 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Axil, There is plenty of reason the believe that the earth is on an
 overall warming cycle.   We can be fairly confident that one day it will
 reverse and we will be facing a new ice age since this has happened over
 and over again according to the best historical measurements.  No doubt
 that polar ice contributes to the process along with countless other
 natural and man made phenomena.

 When the next ice age begins is clearly debatable and I hope that we have
 many years before that devastating event comes upon us.  So far I have not
 heard a great deal of noise from the global warming crowd suggesting that
 the current warming period will encourage the return of the cold that is so
 dangerous to our existence.   It is only a matter of time before this
 becomes a rallying cry of that group of alarmists.  They will get my
 attention at that point provided their models begin to demonstrate accurate
 predictions without needing serious corrections every few years.

 We should resist the urge to put our lives and economies into the hands of
 this group until and if their predictions can be shown to be trustworthy.
 It may well turn out that what they are attempting is intractable and not
 subject to accurate modeling.   What they contend to be caused by man might
 merely be a natural consequence of the earths response to solar and cosmic
 driving forces.  Sometimes it is very difficult to separate cause and
 effect.

 The development of LENR systems will come around soon and that will
 rapidly reduce the dependence upon fossil fuels and additional warming gas
 releases needed to supply our energy future demands.   Lets reserve our
 concerns about what may or may not happen in 100 years under the current
 conditions and realize that our species has been quite adaptable in the
 past and will find a solution to any problems that arise.   The scientific
 understanding that will develop during that period will appear as magic to
 us.

 Dave


  -Original Message-
 From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 2:13 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?

  Ice is melting and feeding the deep ocean currents that rise every few
 decades to cool off the coasts.

  Sea level rise is the simple indicator that marks the point of disaster.
 Coastal cities will flood as the ice melts. When all the ice is gone, that
 is when the climate is in big trouble. The temperature of the oceans
 controls the temperature of the atmosphere. The melting of the ice is the
 factor that introduces the oscillations in the climate.

  If you put a glass of ice in an oven, the water in the glass will stay
 at freezing until the ice melts. When all the ice is gone, the water will
 begin to heat on its way to boiling.


 On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 wrote:

 Please note that I pointed out that* I *have not seen one graph
 predicting the long term pause.   Of course I have not reviewed every
 single model output since that would be a useless exercise.

 Which predictions should we depend upon?  Those of the IPCC likely carry
 the most weight and they show no pause.  I assume that the next versions of
 their models will be modified to reflect the new data, but you must admit
 that this is hindsight and not prediction as such.  When will the next
 major error be uncovered?  Are you 100% confident that we will not be
 entering into a cooling period during the next 20 years?

 I can not blindly and quietly sit by and accept the clearly poor
 performance of a group of assumed experts that are causing immense damage
 to our standard of living.   They are merely high priests of a new religion

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-26 Thread Jojo Iznart

Even if this were true, the same events would open up vast tracts of the 
northern American Continent for agriculture.  There is little agriculture in 
the Southwest so impact of a megadrought would be minimal to the US food 
security picture.

Even considering your worst case scenario. it is still a plus overall for 
humanity.


Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:48 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?


  http://phys.org/news/2014-08-southwest-megadrought-century.html


  No matter how it is caused, the residences of the west coast will need to 
adapt. 


  Due to global warming, scientists say, the chances of the southwestern United 
States experiencing a decadelong drought is at least 50 percent, and the 
chances of a megadrought – one that lasts up to 35 years – ranges from 20 to 
50 percent over the next century. 


  The study by Cornell, University of Arizona and U.S. Geological Survey 
researchers will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American 
Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate.

  For the southwestern U.S., I'm not optimistic about avoiding real 
megadroughts, said Toby Ault, Cornell assistant professor of earth and 
atmospheric sciences and lead author of the paper. As we add greenhouse gases 
into the atmosphere – and we haven't put the brakes on stopping this – we are 
weighting the dice for megadrought.



   Ault said that the West and Southwest must look for mitigation strategies to 
cope with looming long-drought scenarios. This will be worse than anything 
seen during the last 2,000 years and would pose unprecedented challenges to 
water resources in the region, he said.

   



  On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:57 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Axil, There is plenty of reason the believe that the earth is on an overall 
warming cycle.   We can be fairly confident that one day it will reverse and we 
will be facing a new ice age since this has happened over and over again 
according to the best historical measurements.  No doubt that polar ice 
contributes to the process along with countless other natural and man made 
phenomena.

When the next ice age begins is clearly debatable and I hope that we have 
many years before that devastating event comes upon us.  So far I have not 
heard a great deal of noise from the global warming crowd suggesting that the 
current warming period will encourage the return of the cold that is so 
dangerous to our existence.   It is only a matter of time before this becomes a 
rallying cry of that group of alarmists.  They will get my attention at that 
point provided their models begin to demonstrate accurate predictions without 
needing serious corrections every few years.

We should resist the urge to put our lives and economies into the hands of 
this group until and if their predictions can be shown to be trustworthy.  It 
may well turn out that what they are attempting is intractable and not subject 
to accurate modeling.   What they contend to be caused by man might merely be a 
natural consequence of the earths response to solar and cosmic driving forces.  
Sometimes it is very difficult to separate cause and effect.

The development of LENR systems will come around soon and that will rapidly 
reduce the dependence upon fossil fuels and additional warming gas releases 
needed to supply our energy future demands.   Lets reserve our concerns about 
what may or may not happen in 100 years under the current conditions and 
realize that our species has been quite adaptable in the past and will find a 
solution to any problems that arise.   The scientific understanding that will 
develop during that period will appear as magic to us. 

Dave 





-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com

To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 2:13 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?


Ice is melting and feeding the deep ocean currents that rise every few 
decades to cool off the coasts. 


Sea level rise is the simple indicator that marks the point of disaster. 
Coastal cities will flood as the ice melts. When all the ice is gone, that is 
when the climate is in big trouble. The temperature of the oceans controls the 
temperature of the atmosphere. The melting of the ice is the factor that 
introduces the oscillations in the climate.


If you put a glass of ice in an oven, the water in the glass will stay at 
freezing until the ice melts. When all the ice is gone, the water will begin to 
heat on its way to boiling. 



On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

  Please note that I pointed out that I have not seen one graph predicting 
the long term pause.   Of course I have not reviewed every single model output 
since that would be a useless exercise.

  Which predictions should we depend upon?  Those of the IPCC likely carry

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

Jojo said: Even if this were true, the same events would open up vast
tracts of the northern American Continent for agriculture.  There is little
agriculture in the Southwest so impact of a megadrought would be minimal
to the US food security picture.

Even considering your worst case scenario. it is still a plus overall for
humanity.

Unlikely this will be a plus for Humanity.  More like a tragedy as nothing
will grow, and place that do get rain will get too much of it.



On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com
wrote:

  Even if this were true, the same events would open up vast tracts of the
 northern American Continent for agriculture.  There is little agriculture
 in the Southwest so impact of a megadrought would be minimal to the US
 food security picture.

 Even considering your worst case scenario. it is still a plus overall for
 humanity.


 Jojo




 - Original Message -
 *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:48 AM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:global warming?

  http://phys.org/news/2014-08-southwest-megadrought-century.html

 No matter how it is caused, the residences of the west coast will need to
 adapt.

 Due to global warming, scientists say, the chances of the southwestern
 United States experiencing a decadelong drought is at least 50 percent, and
 the chances of a megadrought – one that lasts up to 35 years – ranges
 from 20 to 50 percent over the next century.

  The study by Cornell, University of Arizona and U.S. Geological Survey
 researchers will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American
 Meteorological Society's *Journal of Climate*.

 For the southwestern U.S., I'm not optimistic about avoiding real
 megadroughts, said Toby Ault, Cornell assistant professor of earth and
 atmospheric sciences and lead author of the paper. As we add greenhouse
 gases into the atmosphere – and we haven't put the brakes on stopping
 this – we are weighting the dice for megadrought.


  Ault said that the West and Southwest must look for mitigation
 strategies to cope with looming long-drought scenarios. This will be worse
 than anything seen during the last 2,000 years and would pose unprecedented
 challenges to water resources in the region, he said.




 On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:57 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 wrote:

 Axil, There is plenty of reason the believe that the earth is on an
 overall warming cycle.   We can be fairly confident that one day it will
 reverse and we will be facing a new ice age since this has happened over
 and over again according to the best historical measurements.  No doubt
 that polar ice contributes to the process along with countless other
 natural and man made phenomena.

 When the next ice age begins is clearly debatable and I hope that we have
 many years before that devastating event comes upon us.  So far I have not
 heard a great deal of noise from the global warming crowd suggesting that
 the current warming period will encourage the return of the cold that is so
 dangerous to our existence.   It is only a matter of time before this
 becomes a rallying cry of that group of alarmists.  They will get my
 attention at that point provided their models begin to demonstrate accurate
 predictions without needing serious corrections every few years.

 We should resist the urge to put our lives and economies into the hands
 of this group until and if their predictions can be shown to be
 trustworthy.  It may well turn out that what they are attempting is
 intractable and not subject to accurate modeling.   What they contend to be
 caused by man might merely be a natural consequence of the earths response
 to solar and cosmic driving forces.  Sometimes it is very difficult to
 separate cause and effect.

 The development of LENR systems will come around soon and that will
 rapidly reduce the dependence upon fossil fuels and additional warming gas
 releases needed to supply our energy future demands.   Lets reserve our
 concerns about what may or may not happen in 100 years under the current
 conditions and realize that our species has been quite adaptable in the
 past and will find a solution to any problems that arise.   The scientific
 understanding that will develop during that period will appear as magic to
 us.

 Dave


  -Original Message-
 From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
  To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 2:13 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?

  Ice is melting and feeding the deep ocean currents that rise every few
 decades to cool off the coasts.

 Sea level rise is the simple indicator that marks the point of disaster.
 Coastal cities will flood as the ice melts. When all the ice is gone, that
 is when the climate is in big trouble. The temperature of the oceans
 controls the temperature of the atmosphere. The melting of the ice is the
 factor that introduces the oscillations in the climate.

 If you

Re: [Vo]:global warming?


I saw where that Atlantic current is the assumed reason for the pause and it 
might actually be the culprit.  The climatologists also had a number of other 
possible factors that they were considering before they finally chose that 
particular one.  Does it not concern you that this factor was just now 
discovered?  Surely a really good model of the climate system would have 
included that factor previously while at the same time these guys were making 
claims that they had great confidence in their earlier predictions.
 
This type of situation is the root of my skeptical feeling toward them.   On 
several occasions, of which this is the latest, the models have been found to 
fail to take into consideration very important factors that were later added 
when the predictions did not match the measurements.  I can only assume that 
there are several, or perhaps many other factors that are waiting for an 
opportunity to appear.  This likely will occur a number of times in the next 
100 years as the models continue to make erroneous predictions.  

It is entirely possible that these guys now have a perfect model but only 
sufficient time will prove that is true.  How can we make laws that encumber 
our industries and lives based upon this type of prediction that may likely 
prove grossly inaccurate?  In my opinion it would be much wiser to wait until 
the models really show good performance before we act.  That will take at least 
a 10 year wait to begin to demonstrate accurate predictions versus merely curve 
fitting old data.  Besides, the model makers now claim that it will likely be 
11 years before the heating spell returns.  The actual turn around point is not 
known or predicted with confidence at this time.  A throw of dice is about that 
accurate.

I would truly love to have faith in those predictive models to make our tough 
decisions easier to swallow.   Unfortunately, that is a luxury that is not 
available to me and I would hope that others realize that the models do not 
deserve our respect considering their track record.  In time I am confident 
that they will improve, but there is no guarantee that they can ever do a super 
job of predicting a system with the complexity of our climate.  Only time can 
answer that question.

I wonder if these guys are being more humble now that they have been shown to 
have serious errors in their models?  If not, then the problem will not go away 
without finding a new set of actors.

It is not fun being a skeptic and taking all the heat from the more trusting 
guys on this list, but I find it cowardly to silently sit by and accept what I 
consider wrong.

Dave
 
 
-Original Message-
From: CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 6:20 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?


I was reading last week's Science magazine and they had an paper that talks 
about the new finding that the Atlantic ocean was trapping much more heat than 
expected.They conclude that the leveling out of temperature rise is due to 
this.   It's a pretty compelling science finding. 
What they found are that currents in the Atlantic are moving much faster than 
normal and that was caused by a change in salinity from fresh water melts.   
The faster currents are pulling more of the hot surface waters down to 1000m or 
more.   This gives the appearance of cooling global temperatures and giving the 
stair step in land/atmosphere temperature rise.   This current reverses every 
30 years, so they expect the shelf to continue for another 10 years after which 
the temperatures should rise very quickly with a very sharp slope.   Even 
though it looks like we are on a step that doesn't mean global average 
temperatures have stopped rising.  It's just that they are not rising as 
quickly as theory predict.   Last year was still the hottest ever recorded in 
the history of mankind.   http://www.climate.gov.   With the new information,  
about the Atlantic currents It shouldn't take the atmospheric modelers to long 
before the models are corrected.  


One concern that is related has to do with the methane clathrate found on the 
Arctic sea floor.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate



As the Arctic ocean warms and warm currents circulate that heat even more, is 
that it could rapidly increase methane levels.   Already scientists have seen 
more and more methane seepage bubbling up from the Arctic ocean waters.
Methane has 25x the heat trapping ability that CO2 has so a little goes a long 
way.   There is a lot of methane trapped on the ocean floor that only needs a 
0.1C change to make it sublimate into methane gas.  If enough happens, it could 
trigger a run-away feedback loop where methane's contribution adds more to 
global temperature wise, which heats the oceans more, which sublimates more 
methane clathrate.  At the same time, evaporation of surface waters will 
increase adding more water vapor (also a potent greenhouse gas

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-26 Thread Jojo Iznart

CB, I still don't understand your contention. 

A Delta T of 6C would cause all plant life to die?  Is this what you are saying?



Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: CB Sites 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:30 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?


  Jojo said: Even if this were true, the same events would open up vast tracts 
of the northern American Continent for agriculture.  There is little 
agriculture in the Southwest so impact of a megadrought would be minimal to 
the US food security picture.

  Even considering your worst case scenario. it is still a plus overall for 
humanity.


  Unlikely this will be a plus for Humanity.  More like a tragedy as nothing 
will grow, and place that do get rain will get too much of it.





  On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

Even if this were true, the same events would open up vast tracts of the 
northern American Continent for agriculture.  There is little agriculture in 
the Southwest so impact of a megadrought would be minimal to the US food 
security picture.

Even considering your worst case scenario. it is still a plus overall for 
humanity.


Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:48 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?


  http://phys.org/news/2014-08-southwest-megadrought-century.html


  No matter how it is caused, the residences of the west coast will need to 
adapt. 


  Due to global warming, scientists say, the chances of the southwestern 
United States experiencing a decadelong drought is at least 50 percent, and the 
chances of a megadrought – one that lasts up to 35 years – ranges from 20 to 
50 percent over the next century. 


  The study by Cornell, University of Arizona and U.S. Geological Survey 
researchers will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American 
Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate.

  For the southwestern U.S., I'm not optimistic about avoiding real 
megadroughts, said Toby Ault, Cornell assistant professor of earth and 
atmospheric sciences and lead author of the paper. As we add greenhouse gases 
into the atmosphere – and we haven't put the brakes on stopping this – we are 
weighting the dice for megadrought.



   Ault said that the West and Southwest must look for mitigation 
strategies to cope with looming long-drought scenarios. This will be worse 
than anything seen during the last 2,000 years and would pose unprecedented 
challenges to water resources in the region, he said.

   



  On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:57 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com 
wrote:

Axil, There is plenty of reason the believe that the earth is on an 
overall warming cycle.   We can be fairly confident that one day it will 
reverse and we will be facing a new ice age since this has happened over and 
over again according to the best historical measurements.  No doubt that polar 
ice contributes to the process along with countless other natural and man made 
phenomena.

When the next ice age begins is clearly debatable and I hope that we 
have many years before that devastating event comes upon us.  So far I have not 
heard a great deal of noise from the global warming crowd suggesting that the 
current warming period will encourage the return of the cold that is so 
dangerous to our existence.   It is only a matter of time before this becomes a 
rallying cry of that group of alarmists.  They will get my attention at that 
point provided their models begin to demonstrate accurate predictions without 
needing serious corrections every few years.

We should resist the urge to put our lives and economies into the hands 
of this group until and if their predictions can be shown to be trustworthy.  
It may well turn out that what they are attempting is intractable and not 
subject to accurate modeling.   What they contend to be caused by man might 
merely be a natural consequence of the earths response to solar and cosmic 
driving forces.  Sometimes it is very difficult to separate cause and effect.

The development of LENR systems will come around soon and that will 
rapidly reduce the dependence upon fossil fuels and additional warming gas 
releases needed to supply our energy future demands.   Lets reserve our 
concerns about what may or may not happen in 100 years under the current 
conditions and realize that our species has been quite adaptable in the past 
and will find a solution to any problems that arise.   The scientific 
understanding that will develop during that period will appear as magic to us. 

Dave 





-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com

To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 2:13 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?


Ice is melting and feeding the deep ocean currents

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

No David, and thank you for not regurgitating a FOX news report on global
warming.  Physics is a very powerful tool for our understanding of the
world.  We live it every day from the engineering of bridges on a
macro-scale to the nano-scale of your home computer's vlsi cpu.  The point
is PEOPLE KNOW SHIT.  Physics, Chemistry,  Mathematics, Engineering, and
the vast Biological sciences have give people an immense knowledge base
about what is fact and what is fiction.  That knowledge base is VAST!
 Indeed, we Cold Fusioniers are trying to add new knowledge into that
expanse material properties and behaviors.

Climate scientists also have vast knowledge in their fields.  Sure, one can
second guess them but does that make you expert enough to refute their
claims?  (In this case WARNINGS about a potential extinction event!)   Hell
no.  I hope that everyone on vortex realizes that this thing called
climate change by rightwingers, is actually slow motion global
extinction. Here is why.  The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere from the
combustion of fossil fuels is similar in levels released from major meteor
strikes on earth.

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/full/news.2009.477.html

Bottom line, is there is a lot to be concerned about.   Deniers of Global
Warming need to be very concerned as life sometimes just doesn't give a
shit what you think.




On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:49 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 I saw where that Atlantic current is the assumed reason for the pause and
 it might actually be the culprit.  The climatologists also had a number of
 other possible factors that they were considering before they finally chose
 that particular one.  Does it not concern you that this factor was just now
 discovered?  Surely a really good model of the climate system would have
 included that factor previously while at the same time these guys were
 making claims that they had great confidence in their earlier predictions.

 This type of situation is the root of my skeptical feeling toward
 them.   On several occasions, of which this is the latest, the models have
 been found to fail to take into consideration very important factors that
 were later added when the predictions did not match the measurements.  I
 can only assume that there are several, or perhaps many other factors that
 are waiting for an opportunity to appear.  This likely will occur a number
 of times in the next 100 years as the models continue to make erroneous
 predictions.

 It is entirely possible that these guys now have a perfect model but only
 sufficient time will prove that is true.  How can we make laws that
 encumber our industries and lives based upon this type of prediction that
 may likely prove grossly inaccurate?  In my opinion it would be much wiser
 to wait until the models really show good performance before we act.  That
 will take at least a 10 year wait to begin to demonstrate
 accurate predictions versus merely curve fitting old data.  Besides, the
 model makers now claim that it will likely be 11 years before the heating
 spell returns.  The actual turn around point is not known or predicted with
 confidence at this time.  A throw of dice is about that accurate.

 I would truly love to have faith in those predictive models to make our
 tough decisions easier to swallow.   Unfortunately, that is a luxury that
 is not available to me and I would hope that others realize that the
 models do not deserve our respect considering their track record.  In time
 I am confident that they will improve, but there is no guarantee that they
 can ever do a super job of predicting a system with the complexity of our
 climate.  Only time can answer that question.

 I wonder if these guys are being more humble now that they have been shown
 to have serious errors in their models?  If not, then the problem will not
 go away without finding a new set of actors.

 It is not fun being a skeptic and taking all the heat from the more
 trusting guys on this list, but I find it cowardly to silently sit by and
 accept what I consider wrong.

 Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 6:20 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?

  I was reading last week's Science magazine and they had an paper that
 talks about the new finding that the Atlantic ocean was trapping much more
 heat than expected.They conclude that the leveling out of temperature
 rise is due to this.   It's a pretty compelling science finding.
 What they found are that currents in the Atlantic are moving much faster
 than normal and that was caused by a change in salinity from fresh water
 melts.   The faster currents are pulling more of the hot surface waters
 down to 1000m or more.   This gives the appearance of cooling global
 temperatures and giving the stair step in land/atmosphere temperature rise.
   This current reverses every 30 years, so they expect the shelf

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 6:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

You also probably realize that a polynomial fit to a high power order
 yields coefficients that vary depending upon the order of the polynomial
 chosen.  Many combinations of coefficients will fit the input/output data
 over a restricted range.  The problem shows up once you use those
 different coefficients to project the curve forwards into unknown future
 points.

 We are now clearly in witness to an example of the type of problem that I
 am speaking of. ...


I think the bad fit to the data you identify could just as likely be an
underfit than an overfit; i.e., they have adequately modeled the
first-order phenomenon (an increase in temperature) but failed to take into
account one or more second-order cyclical trends.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-25 Thread Chris Zell

To me, all of the expertise, all of the Ph.D's, all of the tenure and all of 
the opinions of climatologists are simply worthless in relation to the world at 
large - except for their ability to make accurate predictions.

Really, of what general value would climatology be without an established 
record of prediction?  It would come painfully close to being a pseudo-science.

This doesn't mean that they need to be able to forecast tomorrow's lottery 
numbers ( in effect) but we should expect that they can create predictive 
graphs that follow emerging reality with a reasonable fit - and frankly, that's 
where the problem seems to be.

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-25 Thread David Roberson

You have the right general idea about the fit not being adequate.  I suspect 
that their model is far more complex than a simple linear model and of much 
higher order.   The net prediction of future temperatures is a result of how 
all of these terms combine and it will diverge more and more rapidly from the 
fitting base data as time progresses.  The higher order effects contain the 
more rapidly changing processes.

Cyclic behavior can be modeled by a series.  A good example of this is 
demonstrated by the infinite series that can be used to construct a sine wave.  
 For small time periods the linear term does a pretty good job of matching the 
curve.  As you move forward in time, the other, higher order terms, become the 
most significant ones which then allows the overall function to go through its 
cyclic behavior.

The appearance of the temperature pause and the description that it might well 
last until 2025 and is cyclic strongly suggests that the underlying phenomena 
responsible for this behavior has been in effect during the rapid temperature 
rise and could be one of the reasons for the high slope seen.  If so, the very 
dominate earlier seen hockey stick temperature rise has overstated the true 
underlying increase rate.

As corrections are included to the models we may find that mans contributions 
are overwhelmed by natural effects and that is why I feel that caution is in 
order.  Had there been no long term unexpected pause we may have continued to 
give unwarranted confidence to the models and their expert constructors.  Some 
day I believe that we will be capable of making predictions about climate 
change that match the real world, but that day has not arrived.  Of course even 
then the world throws curve balls our way in the form of volcanoes, changing 
solar activity, and etc. which makes extremely long term predictions a guess at 
best. 

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Aug 25, 2014 2:54 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?



On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 6:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


You also probably realize that a polynomial fit to a high power order yields 
coefficients that vary depending upon the order of the polynomial chosen.  Many 
combinations of coefficients will fit the input/output data over a restricted 
range.  The problem shows up once you use those different coefficients to 
project the curve forwards into unknown future points.

 
We are now clearly in witness to an example of the type of problem that I am 
speaking of. ...




I think the bad fit to the data you identify could just as likely be an 
underfit than an overfit; i.e., they have adequately modeled the first-order 
phenomenon (an increase in temperature) but failed to take into account one or 
more second-order cyclical trends.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

Dave,

I agree.  Maybe the tug of gravity can be endothermic or exothermic
depending upon local conditions


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:08 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 You have the right general idea about the fit not being adequate.  I
 suspect that their model is far more complex than a simple linear model and
 of much higher order.   The net prediction of future temperatures is a
 result of how all of these terms combine and it will diverge more and more
 rapidly from the fitting base data as time progresses.  The higher order
 effects contain the more rapidly changing processes.

 Cyclic behavior can be modeled by a series.  A good example of this is
 demonstrated by the infinite series that can be used to construct a sine
 wave.   For small time periods the linear term does a pretty good job of
 matching the curve.  As you move forward in time, the other, higher order
 terms, become the most significant ones which then allows the overall
 function to go through its cyclic behavior.

 The appearance of the temperature pause and the description that it might
 well last until 2025 and is cyclic strongly suggests that the underlying
 phenomena responsible for this behavior has been in effect during the rapid
 temperature rise and could be one of the reasons for the high slope seen.
 If so, the very dominate earlier seen hockey stick temperature rise has
 overstated the true underlying increase rate.

 As corrections are included to the models we may find that mans
 contributions are overwhelmed by natural effects and that is why I feel
 that caution is in order.  Had there been no long term unexpected pause we
 may have continued to give unwarranted confidence to the models and their
 expert constructors.  Some day I believe that we will be capable of making
 predictions about climate change that match the real world, but that day
 has not arrived.  Of course even then the world throws curve balls our way
 in the form of volcanoes, changing solar activity, and etc. which makes
 extremely long term predictions a guess at best.

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Mon, Aug 25, 2014 2:54 am
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?

   On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 6:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 wrote:

  You also probably realize that a polynomial fit to a high power order
 yields coefficients that vary depending upon the order of the polynomial
 chosen.  Many combinations of coefficients will fit the input/output data
 over a restricted range.  The problem shows up once you use those
 different coefficients to project the curve forwards into unknown future
 points.

 We are now clearly in witness to an example of the type of problem that I
 am speaking of. ...


  I think the bad fit to the data you identify could just as likely be an
 underfit than an overfit; i.e., they have adequately modeled the
 first-order phenomenon (an increase in temperature) but failed to take into
 account one or more second-order cyclical trends.

  Eric

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-25 Thread Bob Cook

Jed--


I think your reliance on experts is a little over stated, and   I tend to agree 
with Dave’s assessment of expecting short term predictions to be possible.  
Many so-called experts in the nuclear industry endorsed the idea of storing 
spent fuel in wet storage at locations subject  to both earth quakes and tidal 
waves.  Look what happened in Japan.


I can think of many other conclusions of experts in various technical fields 
where their conclusions have been shown to be wrong.   The prediction of 
practical hot fusion is one we are all aware of.  


I find it particularly troubling that so called experts disagree on key models 
associated with the same event being considered.  It does not give me much 
faith in any expert in the field of global warming.  


Time is a key input to most if not all global warming modeling.  Some of the 
models are more empirical than others.  The ones that are based on constitutive 
models in such a complex situation are more suspect in my reasoning than those 
that are empirical.  If short term predictions are not consistent with the 
empirical model, that implies  some key parameters are not being considered in 
the empirical models.  


This supports Dave’s and my consideration that some experts are not too expert 
in global warming.  


Bob Cook






Sent from Windows Mail





From: Jed Rothwell
Sent: ‎Sunday‎, ‎August‎ ‎24‎, ‎2014 ‎12‎:‎05‎ ‎PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com







David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:




Weather forecast is virtually perfect for the next hour at most locations but 
hopeless in predicting what will happen in a week.  I view the global warming 
modeling process in a similar manner.




As I pointed out, and as countless climate experts have pointed out, you have 
no justification for this view of yours. Long term climate prediction and near 
term weather prediction are related in some ways, but they are VERY DIFFERENT 
in important ways. That is what the experts say. They give compelling reasons. 
You are ignoring their reasons. You resemble a self-appointed expert on 
Wikipedia writing bogus reasons not to believe tritium measurements in cold 
fusion.




Your demand is irrational. It is, as I said, like demanding that an 
epidemiologist or a life insurance expert tell you the year and month that you 
yourself will die from disease. Just because we can predict these things for 
large groups of people that does not give us the ability to predict it for 
individuals. The ability to make long term predictions of the climate is an 
entirely different science from weather prediction. One cannot be held to the 
standards of the other.




 


So, how are we as a society supposed to evaluate the output of the global 
warming scientists?  It makes perfect sense to expect them to be able to 
demonstrate correlation between their predictions and what actually happens a 
few years into the future.




Says who? Where did you get that information? Who told you that climatology 
should work a few years in the future? Do you also make claims about the 
timescale of theories and models in chemistry in physics that you have not 
studied? Are you going to say that a calorimeter with a 1-hour timescale should 
work equally well measuring a heat burst lasting 10 milliseconds?




If they do not make predictions a few years into the future, they probably have 
good reasons. Unless you know a great deal about their work, and you have 
evaluated their reasons, you have no business second guessing them or making 
demands. People should never assume they know more than experts! That has been 
the whole problem with cold fusion from day one. People think they know more 
about electrochemistry and calorimetry than Fleischmann. You sound like the 
people who tell me that if cold fusion is real, we should have cold fusion 
powered automobiles by now. They have no idea what the problems are, or what 
the limitations of the science are.




- Jed

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-25 Thread Bob Cook

Chris-


Your considerations are much the same as mine.


Bob






Sent from Windows Mail





From: Chris Zell
Sent: ‎Monday‎, ‎August‎ ‎25‎, ‎2014 ‎7‎:‎23‎ ‎AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com





To me, all of the expertise, all of the Ph.D's, all of the tenure and all of 
the opinions of climatologists are simply worthless in relation to the world at 
large - except for their ability to make accurate predictions.

 

Really, of what general value would climatology be without an established 
record of prediction?  It would come painfully close to being a pseudo-science.

 

This doesn't mean that they need to be able to forecast tomorrow's lottery 
numbers ( in effect) but we should expect that they can create predictive 
graphs that follow emerging reality with a reasonable fit - and frankly, that's 
where the problem seems to be.

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

~10.8 F?


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

  Since when does 6 C correspond with 42.8 F?

 Sent from Windows Mail

 *From:* CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com
 *Sent:* ‎Sunday‎, ‎August‎ ‎24‎, ‎2014 ‎7‎:‎12‎ ‎PM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com

 Jojo, I really think you miss the point.  Let assume a moment the global
 average temperature was 6C above average.  That is 42.8 degrees Fahrenheit!
  You and the deniers have got to get an understanding of what that means.
  It means extinction of life as we know it.  I know you deniers think some
 how man kind will survive.  To be honest, I think that is doubtful.
  Economic systems will not survive, food supplies will not provide, and
 warring political systems will doom the planet.

 I really don't need to say much more, reality will take control and play
 out future events that the deniers will bitch about all the way to the
 extinction of man.




 On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 wrote:

 Eric, I realize how complex the problem that these guys are facing must
 be.  That is the root cause of their problem.  You have listed several good
 points and I will take them into consideration.

 My main issue with the current models is that new processes and
 interactions are being uncovered frequently which modify the behavior of
 the models in a significant manner.  I ask what would be the output of a
 model at the end of this century that had all of the known and
 unknown pertinent factors taken into consideration?  The recent
 acknowledgement of a new factor that allows for a 30 year pause in
 temperature rise is not an issue to be taken lightly.  It also inflicts
 upon me the concern that there are likely more of these factors that remain
 hidden as of today.

 I suspect you have relied upon curve fitting routines in the past and
 realize that enough variables can be chosen and adjusted to match any set
 of input data as closely as desired as long as that data is sparse.  You
 also probably realize that a polynomial fit to a high power order yields
 coefficients that vary depending upon the order of the polynomial chosen.
 Many combinations of coefficients will fit the input/output data over a
 restricted range.  The problem shows up once you use those
 different coefficients to project the curve forwards into unknown future
 points.

 We are now clearly in witness to an example of the type of problem that I
 am speaking of.  The old data apparently matched the functional
 relationship that the modelers have chosen to an excellent degree until the
 pause.  They were confident that no pause would appear and many suggested
 that they would be worried if the pause lasted for more than about 5
 years.  As we know that time period came and passed and the pause continued
 which forced many of these guys to seek an explanation.

 Now, after several more years of unexpected pause, they have come up with
 their best explanation due to the 30 year Atlantic current cycle.  Where
 was this cycle included during the long hockey stick period?  Some might
 consider that the high rate of heating during the earlier period might have
 come about due to added heating by this same cycle.  That certainly makes
 sense to me.

 So, I can not help but to question predictions that have been based upon
 a defective model.  Furthermore, how confident can you possibly be that
 these guys now have all the important factors included within their
 models?  The proof can only be demonstrated by the performance of the
 models during a period of time where they show reasonable results that
 compare to the real world.  We are seeking knowledge of the world's climate
 in 100 years time as we make plans to counter the expected dangers.  It is
 non sense to trust a model that does not work 20 years into the future for
 this purpose.  The past fits are trivial and can always be obtained by
 curve fitting.  The future fit reveals how good the model actually
 performs.  That is where they are lacking.

 Eric, when I design an electrical network that is built and tested I
 expect it to perform as my model predicts.  If I measured results that were
 seriously in error I would not recommend the circuit to others for the same
 application with known problems.  Instead I would dig deeper into the model
 and devices until the results match the model fairly well.  I have in fact
 done this on several occasions.  Only then is the model useful to generate
 predictions of value.

 Dave




 -Original Message-
 From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Aug 24, 2014 4:51 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?

   On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 wrote:

  Eric, I suppose the difference between your beliefs and mine amounts to
 my expectation that the climate change scientists should be held to a high
 standard as is required of most other endeavors.  You apparently

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-25 Thread Bob Cook

Since when does 6 C correspond with 42.8 F?






Sent from Windows Mail





From: CB Sites
Sent: ‎Sunday‎, ‎August‎ ‎24‎, ‎2014 ‎7‎:‎12‎ ‎PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com





Jojo, I really think you miss the point.  Let assume a moment the global 
average temperature was 6C above average.  That is 42.8 degrees Fahrenheit!  
You and the deniers have got to get an understanding of what that means.  It 
means extinction of life as we know it.  I know you deniers think some how man 
kind will survive.  To be honest, I think that is doubtful.  Economic systems 
will not survive, food supplies will not provide, and warring political systems 
will doom the planet.   



I really don't need to say much more, reality will take control and play out 
future events that the deniers will bitch about all the way to the extinction 
of man. 










On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


Eric, I realize how complex the problem that these guys are facing must be.  
That is the root cause of their problem.  You have listed several good points 
and I will take them into consideration.

 

My main issue with the current models is that new processes and interactions 
are being uncovered frequently which modify the behavior of the models in a 
significant manner.  I ask what would be the output of a model at the end of 
this century that had all of the known and unknown pertinent factors taken into 
consideration?  The recent acknowledgement of a new factor that allows for a 30 
year pause in temperature rise is not an issue to be taken lightly.  It also 
inflicts upon me the concern that there are likely more of these factors that 
remain hidden as of today.

 

I suspect you have relied upon curve fitting routines in the past and realize 
that enough variables can be chosen and adjusted to match any set of input data 
as closely as desired as long as that data is sparse.  You also probably 
realize that a polynomial fit to a high power order yields coefficients that 
vary depending upon the order of the polynomial chosen.  Many combinations of 
coefficients will fit the input/output data over a restricted range.  The 
problem shows up once you use those different coefficients to project the curve 
forwards into unknown future points.

 

We are now clearly in witness to an example of the type of problem that I am 
speaking of.  The old data apparently matched the functional relationship that 
the modelers have chosen to an excellent degree until the pause.  They were 
confident that no pause would appear and many suggested that they would be 
worried if the pause lasted for more than about 5 years.  As we know that time 
period came and passed and the pause continued which forced many of these guys 
to seek an explanation.

 

Now, after several more years of unexpected pause, they have come up with their 
best explanation due to the 30 year Atlantic current cycle.  Where was this 
cycle included during the long hockey stick period?  Some might consider that 
the high rate of heating during the earlier period might have come about due to 
added heating by this same cycle.  That certainly makes sense to me.

 

So, I can not help but to question predictions that have been based upon a 
defective model.  Furthermore, how confident can you possibly be that these 
guys now have all the important factors included within their models?  The 
proof can only be demonstrated by the performance of the models during a period 
of time where they show reasonable results that compare to the real world.  We 
are seeking knowledge of the world's climate in 100 years time as we make plans 
to counter the expected dangers.  It is non sense to trust a model that does 
not work 20 years into the future for this purpose.  The past fits are trivial 
and can always be obtained by curve fitting.  The future fit reveals how good 
the model actually performs.  That is where they are lacking.

 

Eric, when I design an electrical network that is built and tested I expect it 
to perform as my model predicts.  If I measured results that were seriously in 
error I would not recommend the circuit to others for the same application with 
known problems.  Instead I would dig deeper into the model and devices until 
the results match the model fairly well.  I have in fact done this on several 
occasions.  Only then is the model useful to generate predictions of value.

 

Dave

 

 

 

 


-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com


Sent: Sun, Aug 24, 2014 4:51 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?








On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:




Eric, I suppose the difference between your beliefs and mine amounts to my 
expectation that the climate change scientists should be held to a high 
standard as is required of most other endeavors.  You apparently are willing to 
give them a free pass since you have a gut feeling

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-25 Thread Kevin O'Malley

Eric, you don't seem to understand what the IPCC is.  They are eXACTLY as
called out -- REPRESENTATIVE of the anthropomorphic climate change thesis.


On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:



 Calling out some of the people involved in climate science who have fudged
 numbers as representative of all of them feels a bit disingenuous to me.
  Because some were guilty of doing this does not impugn the entire lot.
  There's no reason to assume that the majority of climate scientists are
 acting with anything but integrity, just as there's no reason to assume
 that the majority of electrical engineers are acting with anything but
 integrity.  (The same cannot be said, unfortunately, for politicians.)

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-25 Thread Jojo Iznart

Bob, please read the context in which this number came up?  CB was talking 
about the increase which he claims would bring the global average to 42.8F, 
which I point out he probably meant 42.8C

Jojo

  - Original Message - 
  From: Bob Cook 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:37 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?

  Since when does 6 C correspond with 42.8 F?

  Sent from Windows Mail

  From: CB Sites
  Sent: ‎Sunday‎, ‎August‎ ‎24‎, ‎2014 ‎7‎:‎12‎ ‎PM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

  Jojo, I really think you miss the point.  Let assume a moment the global 
average temperature was 6C above average.  That is 42.8 degrees Fahrenheit!  
You and the deniers have got to get an understanding of what that means.  It 
means extinction of life as we know it.  I know you deniers think some how man 
kind will survive.  To be honest, I think that is doubtful.  Economic systems 
will not survive, food supplies will not provide, and warring political systems 
will doom the planet.   

  I really don't need to say much more, reality will take control and play out 
future events that the deniers will bitch about all the way to the extinction 
of man. 

  On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Eric, I realize how complex the problem that these guys are facing must be. 
 That is the root cause of their problem.  You have listed several good points 
and I will take them into consideration.

My main issue with the current models is that new processes and 
interactions are being uncovered frequently which modify the behavior of the 
models in a significant manner.  I ask what would be the output of a model at 
the end of this century that had all of the known and unknown pertinent factors 
taken into consideration?  The recent acknowledgement of a new factor that 
allows for a 30 year pause in temperature rise is not an issue to be taken 
lightly.  It also inflicts upon me the concern that there are likely more of 
these factors that remain hidden as of today.

I suspect you have relied upon curve fitting routines in the past and 
realize that enough variables can be chosen and adjusted to match any set of 
input data as closely as desired as long as that data is sparse.  You also 
probably realize that a polynomial fit to a high power order yields 
coefficients that vary depending upon the order of the polynomial chosen.  Many 
combinations of coefficients will fit the input/output data over a restricted 
range.  The problem shows up once you use those different coefficients to 
project the curve forwards into unknown future points.

We are now clearly in witness to an example of the type of problem that I 
am speaking of.  The old data apparently matched the functional relationship 
that the modelers have chosen to an excellent degree until the pause.  They 
were confident that no pause would appear and many suggested that they would be 
worried if the pause lasted for more than about 5 years.  As we know that time 
period came and passed and the pause continued which forced many of these guys 
to seek an explanation.

Now, after several more years of unexpected pause, they have come up with 
their best explanation due to the 30 year Atlantic current cycle.  Where was 
this cycle included during the long hockey stick period?  Some might consider 
that the high rate of heating during the earlier period might have come about 
due to added heating by this same cycle.  That certainly makes sense to me.

So, I can not help but to question predictions that have been based upon a 
defective model.  Furthermore, how confident can you possibly be that these 
guys now have all the important factors included within their models?  The 
proof can only be demonstrated by the performance of the models during a period 
of time where they show reasonable results that compare to the real world.  We 
are seeking knowledge of the world's climate in 100 years time as we make plans 
to counter the expected dangers.  It is non sense to trust a model that does 
not work 20 years into the future for this purpose.  The past fits are trivial 
and can always be obtained by curve fitting.  The future fit reveals how good 
the model actually performs.  That is where they are lacking.

Eric, when I design an electrical network that is built and tested I expect 
it to perform as my model predicts.  If I measured results that were seriously 
in error I would not recommend the circuit to others for the same application 
with known problems.  Instead I would dig deeper into the model and devices 
until the results match the model fairly well.  I have in fact done this on 
several occasions.  Only then is the model useful to generate predictions of 
value.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sent: Sun, Aug 24, 2014 4:51 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-25 Thread CB Sites

Since google.



On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

  Since when does 6 C correspond with 42.8 F?

 Sent from Windows Mail

 *From:* CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com
 *Sent:* ‎Sunday‎, ‎August‎ ‎24‎, ‎2014 ‎7‎:‎12‎ ‎PM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com

 Jojo, I really think you miss the point.  Let assume a moment the global
 average temperature was 6C above average.  That is 42.8 degrees Fahrenheit!
  You and the deniers have got to get an understanding of what that means.
  It means extinction of life as we know it.  I know you deniers think some
 how man kind will survive.  To be honest, I think that is doubtful.
  Economic systems will not survive, food supplies will not provide, and
 warring political systems will doom the planet.

 I really don't need to say much more, reality will take control and play
 out future events that the deniers will bitch about all the way to the
 extinction of man.




 On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 wrote:

 Eric, I realize how complex the problem that these guys are facing must
 be.  That is the root cause of their problem.  You have listed several good
 points and I will take them into consideration.

 My main issue with the current models is that new processes and
 interactions are being uncovered frequently which modify the behavior of
 the models in a significant manner.  I ask what would be the output of a
 model at the end of this century that had all of the known and
 unknown pertinent factors taken into consideration?  The recent
 acknowledgement of a new factor that allows for a 30 year pause in
 temperature rise is not an issue to be taken lightly.  It also inflicts
 upon me the concern that there are likely more of these factors that remain
 hidden as of today.

 I suspect you have relied upon curve fitting routines in the past and
 realize that enough variables can be chosen and adjusted to match any set
 of input data as closely as desired as long as that data is sparse.  You
 also probably realize that a polynomial fit to a high power order yields
 coefficients that vary depending upon the order of the polynomial chosen.
 Many combinations of coefficients will fit the input/output data over a
 restricted range.  The problem shows up once you use those
 different coefficients to project the curve forwards into unknown future
 points.

 We are now clearly in witness to an example of the type of problem that I
 am speaking of.  The old data apparently matched the functional
 relationship that the modelers have chosen to an excellent degree until the
 pause.  They were confident that no pause would appear and many suggested
 that they would be worried if the pause lasted for more than about 5
 years.  As we know that time period came and passed and the pause continued
 which forced many of these guys to seek an explanation.

 Now, after several more years of unexpected pause, they have come up with
 their best explanation due to the 30 year Atlantic current cycle.  Where
 was this cycle included during the long hockey stick period?  Some might
 consider that the high rate of heating during the earlier period might have
 come about due to added heating by this same cycle.  That certainly makes
 sense to me.

 So, I can not help but to question predictions that have been based upon
 a defective model.  Furthermore, how confident can you possibly be that
 these guys now have all the important factors included within their
 models?  The proof can only be demonstrated by the performance of the
 models during a period of time where they show reasonable results that
 compare to the real world.  We are seeking knowledge of the world's climate
 in 100 years time as we make plans to counter the expected dangers.  It is
 non sense to trust a model that does not work 20 years into the future for
 this purpose.  The past fits are trivial and can always be obtained by
 curve fitting.  The future fit reveals how good the model actually
 performs.  That is where they are lacking.

 Eric, when I design an electrical network that is built and tested I
 expect it to perform as my model predicts.  If I measured results that were
 seriously in error I would not recommend the circuit to others for the same
 application with known problems.  Instead I would dig deeper into the model
 and devices until the results match the model fairly well.  I have in fact
 done this on several occasions.  Only then is the model useful to generate
 predictions of value.

 Dave




 -Original Message-
 From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Aug 24, 2014 4:51 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?

   On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 wrote:

  Eric, I suppose the difference between your beliefs and mine amounts to
 my expectation that the climate change scientists should be held to a high
 standard as is required of most other endeavors.  You

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-25 Thread CB Sites

 the expected dangers.  It is
 non sense to trust a model that does not work 20 years into the future for
 this purpose.  The past fits are trivial and can always be obtained by
 curve fitting.  The future fit reveals how good the model actually
 performs.  That is where they are lacking.

 Eric, when I design an electrical network that is built and tested I
 expect it to perform as my model predicts.  If I measured results that were
 seriously in error I would not recommend the circuit to others for the same
 application with known problems.  Instead I would dig deeper into the model
 and devices until the results match the model fairly well.  I have in fact
 done this on several occasions.  Only then is the model useful to generate
 predictions of value.

 Dave




 -Original Message-
 From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Aug 24, 2014 4:51 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?

   On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 wrote:

  Eric, I suppose the difference between your beliefs and mine amounts
 to my expectation that the climate change scientists should be held to a
 high standard as is required of most other endeavors.  You apparently are
 willing to give them a free pass since you have a gut feeling that they are
 right to some degree.


  I don't think anyone is arguing for giving climate scientists a free
 pass for anything they want to do, anymore than we would argue here for
 giving physicists a free pass to endlessly pour money into ITER or the
 National Ignition Facility; certainly not me.  I'm arguing for humility
 before expertise gradually developed in understanding a wicked problem.  We
 can question policy and funding decisions that are based on uncertain
 conclusions.  But stepping in and saying that we (the general public) are
 in as good a position to weigh the data as capable climate scientists is to
 lose a sense of the proportion in the face of the amount of time and effort
 that must be expended to discern signal from noise in a complex domain.

  Without such humility, we are prone to a little bit of unintentional
 hubris.  It is similar to making the following statements as members of the
 general public:

- What you electrical engineers are saying about instantaneous power
is bunk.  I know that if the sine and the cosine fluctuate too rapidly,
they'll jam together like the keys on a typewriter and throw the power 
 out
of hoc.
- Making a practical quantum computer is not as hard as you guys
make it out to be, for I have built one out of an erector set and rubber
bands and know something about the basic principles involved.
- Moore's law is not at all insurmountable.  The electrical
engineers are simply failing to see that if you add in some refrigeration
lines, the temperature will be sufficiently decreased to allow a 
 continued
exponential increase in circuit density.  This is simple thermodynamics.

 This is probably what we sound like to people who have studied climate
 science when we interject with our analyses without having spent years of
 our lives trying to understand the nuances of the problem.  One hesitates
 to do something similar in the context of LENR, and only does so because
 almost no one who has the proper qualifications is willing to undergo the
 stigma that will attach to anyone in physics who publicly examines LENR.

  The overfitting of a model to a set of data is a generally known risk,
 and ways of avoiding it are taught in undergraduate courses.  If we do not
 give climate scientists the benefit of the doubt on this one, we will be
 proceeding from an assumption that they're incompetent.

  In trying to understand what climate scientists are doing, I would
 draw an analogy to using our knowledge of radioactive decay half-lives to
 understand how much of a radionuclide will exist after a certain amount of
 time.  Because the process is a stochastic one, the knowledge of the
 half-life is close to useless in predicting whether an individual nucleus
 will decay at a certain time.  But over a period of time, the half-life
 will allow one to calculate the amount of the original radionuclide
 remaining to within a high degree of precision.  I doubt that this ability
 was something that was acquired overnight.  It probably took a few years of
 trial and error to empirically tease out the exponential decay relation.
  But even when they were working with less than reliable models, I'm
 guessing they were able to discern the general trend.

  Another analogy to what climate scientists are trying to do is to that
 of a mechanical engineer attempting to predict the temperature of an engine
 that has been running for a certain period of time.  It is probably
 difficult to predict the temperature at a specific thermocouple at an
 instance in time beyond a certain broad range.  But I'm guessing that it's
 not too hard to anticipate

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

 the functional
 relationship that the modelers have chosen to an excellent degree until the
 pause.  They were confident that no pause would appear and many suggested
 that they would be worried if the pause lasted for more than about 5
 years.  As we know that time period came and passed and the pause continued
 which forced many of these guys to seek an explanation.

 Now, after several more years of unexpected pause, they have come up
 with their best explanation due to the 30 year Atlantic current cycle.
 Where was this cycle included during the long hockey stick period?  Some
 might consider that the high rate of heating during the earlier period
 might have come about due to added heating by this same cycle.  That
 certainly makes sense to me.

 So, I can not help but to question predictions that have been based
 upon a defective model.  Furthermore, how confident can you possibly be
 that these guys now have all the important factors included within their
 models?  The proof can only be demonstrated by the performance of the
 models during a period of time where they show reasonable results that
 compare to the real world.  We are seeking knowledge of the world's climate
 in 100 years time as we make plans to counter the expected dangers.  It is
 non sense to trust a model that does not work 20 years into the future for
 this purpose.  The past fits are trivial and can always be obtained by
 curve fitting.  The future fit reveals how good the model actually
 performs.  That is where they are lacking.

 Eric, when I design an electrical network that is built and tested I
 expect it to perform as my model predicts.  If I measured results that were
 seriously in error I would not recommend the circuit to others for the same
 application with known problems.  Instead I would dig deeper into the model
 and devices until the results match the model fairly well.  I have in fact
 done this on several occasions.  Only then is the model useful to generate
 predictions of value.

 Dave




 -Original Message-
 From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Aug 24, 2014 4:51 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?

   On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 wrote:

  Eric, I suppose the difference between your beliefs and mine amounts
 to my expectation that the climate change scientists should be held to a
 high standard as is required of most other endeavors.  You apparently are
 willing to give them a free pass since you have a gut feeling that they 
 are
 right to some degree.


  I don't think anyone is arguing for giving climate scientists a free
 pass for anything they want to do, anymore than we would argue here for
 giving physicists a free pass to endlessly pour money into ITER or the
 National Ignition Facility; certainly not me.  I'm arguing for humility
 before expertise gradually developed in understanding a wicked problem.  We
 can question policy and funding decisions that are based on uncertain
 conclusions.  But stepping in and saying that we (the general public) are
 in as good a position to weigh the data as capable climate scientists is to
 lose a sense of the proportion in the face of the amount of time and effort
 that must be expended to discern signal from noise in a complex domain.

  Without such humility, we are prone to a little bit of unintentional
 hubris.  It is similar to making the following statements as members of the
 general public:

- What you electrical engineers are saying about instantaneous
power is bunk.  I know that if the sine and the cosine fluctuate too
rapidly, they'll jam together like the keys on a typewriter and throw 
 the
power out of hoc.
- Making a practical quantum computer is not as hard as you guys
make it out to be, for I have built one out of an erector set and rubber
bands and know something about the basic principles involved.
- Moore's law is not at all insurmountable.  The electrical
engineers are simply failing to see that if you add in some 
 refrigeration
lines, the temperature will be sufficiently decreased to allow a 
 continued
exponential increase in circuit density.  This is simple thermodynamics.

 This is probably what we sound like to people who have studied climate
 science when we interject with our analyses without having spent years of
 our lives trying to understand the nuances of the problem.  One hesitates
 to do something similar in the context of LENR, and only does so because
 almost no one who has the proper qualifications is willing to undergo the
 stigma that will attach to anyone in physics who publicly examines LENR.

  The overfitting of a model to a set of data is a generally known
 risk, and ways of avoiding it are taught in undergraduate courses.  If we
 do not give climate scientists the benefit of the doubt on this one, we
 will be proceeding from an assumption that they're incompetent.

  In trying

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

 of coefficients will fit the input/output data over a
 restricted range.  The problem shows up once you use those
 different coefficients to project the curve forwards into unknown future
 points.

 We are now clearly in witness to an example of the type of problem
 that I am speaking of.  The old data apparently matched the functional
 relationship that the modelers have chosen to an excellent degree until 
 the
 pause.  They were confident that no pause would appear and many suggested
 that they would be worried if the pause lasted for more than about 5
 years.  As we know that time period came and passed and the pause 
 continued
 which forced many of these guys to seek an explanation.

 Now, after several more years of unexpected pause, they have come up
 with their best explanation due to the 30 year Atlantic current cycle.
 Where was this cycle included during the long hockey stick period?  Some
 might consider that the high rate of heating during the earlier period
 might have come about due to added heating by this same cycle.  That
 certainly makes sense to me.

 So, I can not help but to question predictions that have been based
 upon a defective model.  Furthermore, how confident can you possibly be
 that these guys now have all the important factors included within their
 models?  The proof can only be demonstrated by the performance of the
 models during a period of time where they show reasonable results that
 compare to the real world.  We are seeking knowledge of the world's 
 climate
 in 100 years time as we make plans to counter the expected dangers.  It is
 non sense to trust a model that does not work 20 years into the future for
 this purpose.  The past fits are trivial and can always be obtained by
 curve fitting.  The future fit reveals how good the model actually
 performs.  That is where they are lacking.

 Eric, when I design an electrical network that is built and tested I
 expect it to perform as my model predicts.  If I measured results that 
 were
 seriously in error I would not recommend the circuit to others for the 
 same
 application with known problems.  Instead I would dig deeper into the 
 model
 and devices until the results match the model fairly well.  I have in fact
 done this on several occasions.  Only then is the model useful to generate
 predictions of value.

 Dave




 -Original Message-
 From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Aug 24, 2014 4:51 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?

   On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
  wrote:

  Eric, I suppose the difference between your beliefs and mine amounts
 to my expectation that the climate change scientists should be held to a
 high standard as is required of most other endeavors.  You apparently are
 willing to give them a free pass since you have a gut feeling that they 
 are
 right to some degree.


  I don't think anyone is arguing for giving climate scientists a free
 pass for anything they want to do, anymore than we would argue here for
 giving physicists a free pass to endlessly pour money into ITER or the
 National Ignition Facility; certainly not me.  I'm arguing for humility
 before expertise gradually developed in understanding a wicked problem.  
 We
 can question policy and funding decisions that are based on uncertain
 conclusions.  But stepping in and saying that we (the general public) are
 in as good a position to weigh the data as capable climate scientists is 
 to
 lose a sense of the proportion in the face of the amount of time and 
 effort
 that must be expended to discern signal from noise in a complex domain.

  Without such humility, we are prone to a little bit of unintentional
 hubris.  It is similar to making the following statements as members of 
 the
 general public:

- What you electrical engineers are saying about instantaneous
power is bunk.  I know that if the sine and the cosine fluctuate too
rapidly, they'll jam together like the keys on a typewriter and throw 
 the
power out of hoc.
- Making a practical quantum computer is not as hard as you guys
make it out to be, for I have built one out of an erector set and 
 rubber
bands and know something about the basic principles involved.
- Moore's law is not at all insurmountable.  The electrical
engineers are simply failing to see that if you add in some 
 refrigeration
lines, the temperature will be sufficiently decreased to allow a 
 continued
exponential increase in circuit density.  This is simple 
 thermodynamics.

 This is probably what we sound like to people who have studied climate
 science when we interject with our analyses without having spent years of
 our lives trying to understand the nuances of the problem.  One hesitates
 to do something similar in the context of LENR, and only does so because
 almost no one who has the proper qualifications is willing to undergo the
 stigma

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
wrote:

Eric, you don't seem to understand what the IPCC is.  They are eXACTLY as
 called out -- REPRESENTATIVE of the anthropomorphic climate change thesis.


For the sake of argument, let's assume that it was not just selected
members of the IPPC, but the entire committee, that are corrupt.  What
would you have us conclude about the integrity of the majority of climate
scientists as a result?

Perhaps there are some climate scientists here.  For the climate scientists
out there -- are you corrupt?  If so, why have you not learned virtue and
integrity from the engineers on this list?  What is keeping you from
leading an upright life?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-25 Thread Kevin O'Malley

I'm not all that interested in passing judgement on the integrity of the
majority of climate scientists.  I'm interested in seeing if there's real
science behind this constantly-changing thesis.  My conclusion at this time
is:  NO.  What is there has been driven more by politics than science.

Maybe these scientists-with-an-agenda can put together a model that lasts
longer than a decade before some unforeseen aspect throws off their
precious theory, or they can curve fit without simply cheating.  But I
doubt it, based upon past performance.

In that upcoming decade, LENR will hit, and hit hard.  It's cleaner 
greener than fossil fuels, so it  should make those enviroweenies feel
good.


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Eric, you don't seem to understand what the IPCC is.  They are eXACTLY as
 called out -- REPRESENTATIVE of the anthropomorphic climate change thesis.


 For the sake of argument, let's assume that it was not just selected
 members of the IPPC, but the entire committee, that are corrupt.  What
 would you have us conclude about the integrity of the majority of climate
 scientists as a result?

 Perhaps there are some climate scientists here.  For the climate
 scientists out there -- are you corrupt?  If so, why have you not learned
 virtue and integrity from the engineers on this list?  What is keeping you
 from leading an upright life?

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote:

 This doesn't mean that they need to be able to forecast tomorrow's lottery
 numbers ( in effect) but we should expect that they can create predictive
 graphs that follow emerging reality with a reasonable fit - and frankly,
 that's where the problem seems to be.


Given your acquaintance with the field and familiarity with its complete
failure to predict anything, I am confident that you and others will be
able to draw to our attention to a persistent pattern of failed predictions
that demonstrate, beyond a handful of high-profile news-makers, a chronic
record of a science-that-is-not-a-science.  I'm sure you can help us to
better understand the poor state of the field by characterizing the error
of climate science with some specificity -- for example, no climate model
has had a record of predicting the three-year moving average temperature to
better than 60 percent (10 percent above random) when run over a period of
more than 10 years (this is an example that I pulled out of thin air).  To
demonstrate the failure of a field, obviously we will not be able to do
very much with a handful of prominent failures.  We must show that the all
of the work of the field, taken together, is as good as rolling dice for
helping us to understand long term climate change.

I would be very interested in some quantification of the failure of climate
science.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

I'm not all that interested in passing judgement on the integrity of the
 majority of climate scientists.  I'm interested in seeing if there's real
 science behind this constantly-changing thesis.  My conclusion at this time
 is:  NO.  What is there has been driven more by politics than science.


Climate Corporation is a startup in San Francisco, not far from where I
work, that use climate models to price insurance policies for farmers that
want to insure their crops.  You should definitely warn these guys that
they're in for a huge loss, because there's no science behind what they're
doing:

https://www.climate.com/

Alternatively, if you think you can time things right, you should take out
a short position on Monsanto, their parent company, for their
blockheadedness in acquiring them.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-25 Thread David Roberson

Eric, all you have to do is to read about the current long lasting pause in 
warming along with the statement from these guys that this pause might last 
until 2025.  Since the pause was 100% not predicted and instead should have 
been a more rapid rise, how much more in error could they be?  Of course, with 
hindsight, they suggest that there is an, until now, unknown Atlantic current 
effect which explains the pause.

How on earth could you or anybody else believe that they will be correct in 
their predictions over a 100 year period with this sort of track record?   Are 
you confident that they now have all the correct variables under control?
With the sort of error that has arisen, it is entirely possible that they have 
missed the boat completely and we might actually be heading into a cooling 
period.  

They do not merit a free pass like some seem to imply.  Also, it does not take 
an advanced degree or the requirement that a skeptic be a climatologist to 
evaluate their work.  Their model outputs are their contact to the public and 
decision makers and anyone can observe how poorly their predictions match the 
real world data.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 12:56 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?



On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote:



This doesn't mean that they need to be able to forecast tomorrow's lottery 
numbers ( in effect) but we should expect that they can create predictive 
graphs that follow emerging reality with a reasonable fit - and frankly, that's 
where the problem seems to be.




Given your acquaintance with the field and familiarity with its complete 
failure to predict anything, I am confident that you and others will be able to 
draw to our attention to a persistent pattern of failed predictions that 
demonstrate, beyond a handful of high-profile news-makers, a chronic record of 
a science-that-is-not-a-science.  I'm sure you can help us to better understand 
the poor state of the field by characterizing the error of climate science with 
some specificity -- for example, no climate model has had a record of 
predicting the three-year moving average temperature to better than 60 percent 
(10 percent above random) when run over a period of more than 10 years (this 
is an example that I pulled out of thin air).  To demonstrate the failure of a 
field, obviously we will not be able to do very much with a handful of 
prominent failures.  We must show that the all of the work of the field, taken 
together, is as good as rolling dice for helping us to understand long term 
climate change.


I would be very interested in some quantification of the failure of climate 
science.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:global warming?


This is the latest explanation for the surface temperature pause.  Why was this 
not included in the earlier models?  How many more variables remain unknown 
which might lead to errors in the future predictions?
 
This is exactly why so many question the science.   A good scientist should 
remain skeptical under these conditions and clearly the science is not settled 
as some seem to believe.
 
I suspect that most of the guys working on this problem sincerely believe that 
what their models predict is accurate.  Some might fudge the numbers when in 
doubt of the best values but how can we blame them for being frustrated?  We 
just need to ensure that the results of these models is filtered with the 
proper skeptical inputs.

The earth has a messy climate that changes in strange ways.  It has gone 
through periods of extreme cold and warmth.  It seldom remains constant for 
long periods of time when measured on geological time frames and we need to 
accept that fact as normal.  The contributions of man to the process remain a 
mystery that is yet to be resolved.  If our tinkering with the atmosphere leads 
to an eventual rapid cool down, then we are in trouble.  Crops grow better in 
warm weather than under ice age conditions, so it is a good thing that the 
temperature is heading in the right direction.  My biggest fear is that our 
temporary heating phase might bring on the major cold spell more rapidly than 
it would occur otherwise.   It just seems logical to me that a return to 
dangerous cold climate lay ahead for future generations to encounter.
 
Dave
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Aug 24, 2014 12:13 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?


There is a 30 year ocean temperature oscillation due to the Atlantic and 
southern sea saline inversion.



On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote:


Fraud is too strong a word.  Last I heard, there was controversy about 
including temps from the 1930's ( which were unusually high).  Some people 
would discard them as an outlier, others would include them entirely. I can 
understand both opinions.

Re: [Vo]:global warming?


I agree that the fossil fuel crew is going to come at us with loaded guns once 
the true potential of LENR is understood.  It might not be confined to 
companies alone since many countries depend upon selling their resources in 
order to keep their standard of living at the current level.
 
Dave
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Aug 24, 2014 12:34 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?


Cold fusion and Global warming have the same disruptive collection of interest 
groups arrayed against them, the fossil fuel industry. When cold fusion becomes 
a real energy option, the storm will break loose and it will be far more 
intense than  has ever been seen for Global warming.  This LENR storm will be 
far worse than you can ever imagine because Cold fusion is considered a joke 
now and when that impression changes it will be an ultra shock and a nightmare 
of major proponents of the carbon industries. Global warming is now a 100 year 
off threat were LENR will be a threat perceived as catastrophic in a few weeks 
that will spring forth out of nowhere.



On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 11:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

CB, the folks that do not believe that man made global warming is the primary 
cause of the heating have a right to their opinions just as you do and it is 
not appropriate for you to write in this manner.  Perhaps you missed the latest 
statement from the modelers that the current flat temperature period might last 
until 2025 or so before the heating resumes.  Considering that their models did 
not even hint that this was possible, I think you might want to reconsider the 
quality of the predictions of those models.
 
I expect good correlation between what one predicts and what actually occurs 
for a process that is well understood.  If this is not seen then it is proper 
to suspect that the model is lacking.  One day these guys might get things 
right, but for now, they are seriously in error.  When do you think it will be 
appropriate to expect them to generate answers that match the real world?  They 
have come to bat and struck out this time.  Even they admit the lack of 
correlation at this point after a long denial.
 
Surely you must realize that essentially every scientific theory will be shown 
to be incorrect at some time in the future.  It is entirely possible that the 
global warming crowd will become the ones that leave the scene with their tails 
between their legs like the tobacco industry execs you mention.  Complex 
systems are notoriously difficult to understand and the global climate behavior 
appears to be one of the most complex around.  If you have an open mind you 
might want to look into the correlation between solar activity and cloud 
formation. 
 
I vote along with you that global warming is a subject of extreme controversy 
and it would be great if vortex never discusses the issue again.  Until that 
time please refrain from using inappropriate language.
 
Dave

 
 
-Original Message-
From: CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Aug 22, 2014 8:50 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?


Jed is write in my opinion between the deniers of global warming and the 
skeptic of cold fusion, in some aspects.  I think the better analogy is deniers 
of anthropogenic global warming and the tobacco industry lobby that claimed 
tobacco didn't cause cancer.   It took a long time for that debate to end, with 
the tobacco industry having to put their tail between their legs and fork out 
billions in lawsuits.   Global warming scientists are on top of there game.  
The people that deny global warming on the internet blogs, comments, and forums 
are so foolish and look to be nothing short of butt holes with an agenda.   And 
that agenda is to be the biggest ass that they can be if it conforms to what 
their buddy's think.


I just hope this subject on global warming never again appears on vortex.  It's 
to much of an off-subject hot potato.

 
  





On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:





I can serve up thousands of similar reports on cold fusion,

***And you do.  You serve up factual reports on cold fusion.  And there are 
thousands of factual reports on global warming.  Some conclude there's manmade 
warming, others conclude it's caused by the sun.  Imagine that:  the sun warms 
up planets, like ours.There's a distinct lack of evidence for something 
that is supposed to be such a friggin slam-dunk.  When it is a slam-dunk, 
there's no need for fraud.  


This proves only that cold fusion researchers are primates like everyone else.

***And so are climate researchers.  On both sides.  I've seen reports that 
strongly correlate global warming with solar activity.  What a huge DUHH 
factor.  Trying to overcome the obvious and claim that such a thing is wrong, 
that there's some ton of evidence that says mankind causes

Re: [Vo]:global warming?


I consider your point valid Jojo.  How many additional effects will be found 
and contrived to explain why the current models are in error?  Until we have a 
handle on all of the components we have essentially nothing of value.  Some 
organization needs to step up and demand that the models demonstrate reasonably 
accurate predictions.   This reminds me of how upset most engineers would 
become if their filter software designed a low pass filter when they were 
expecting a bandpass one.

Some day in the future the climate models will achieve stable and accurate 
results.  That might take 30 years or might happen in just a few, but until 
that time comes it is not wise to accept results that are proven seriously 
wrong every few years and patched up until the next problem comes to light.

How many recall the disruption that arouse when continental drift was proposed? 
 The settled science as well as every consensus taken among geologists would 
keep us in the dark ages regarding this issue.  The first proponents of drift 
were considered idiots to suggest such a stupid idea.  There are many parallels 
between what the consensus groups of both of these issues believe.  But science 
is not advanced by consensus and that is a good thing.  It is better to keep 
the door open for decent as we keep attempting in LENR research.

Dave
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Aug 24, 2014 1:28 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?



I hope my point is now ultra clear to readers.  Axil is basically saying the 
temperature oscillation is related to Global Warming.  Hence, my point, that 
Global Warming theory has an all-inclusive symptoms list.  Everything is due 
to Global warming.
 
INTRACTABLE RIDICULOUSNESS
 
 
 
Jojo
 
 
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   Axil Axil   
  
To: vortex-l 
  
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 12:13   PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?
  


  
There is a 30 year ocean temperature oscillation due to the   Atlantic and 
southern sea saline inversion.
  


  
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote:
  


Fraud is too strong a word.  Last I heard, there was controversy about 
including temps from the 1930's ( which were unusually high).  Some people 
would discard them as an outlier, others would include them entirely. I can 
understand both opinions.

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-24 Thread Terry Blanton

On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 3:18 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 I agree that the fossil fuel crew is going to come at us with loaded guns
 once the true potential of LENR is understood.

 These are not stupid people.  They already realize the potential.  Most,
like Shell's S.T.E.P. program are investing in new energy.  Why would Big
Oil want to fight when they could join?  They are sitting on piles of cash
awaiting to invest in the next big energy thing.  It's their business.

And don't worry.  What remains of cheap fossil energy will be harvested.
After all, free energy isn't really free.  There will always be a market
for the oil at some price.

These are not stupid people.

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:


 I agree that the fossil fuel crew is going to come at us with loaded guns
 once the true potential of LENR is understood.

 These are not stupid people.  They already realize the potential.


I disagree. I have had some interaction with these people. I think they are
stupid, and they do not fully realize the potential. They understand it,
but they do not actually grasp it. They resemble the top managers at DEC,
Data General and the other minicomputer companies when confronted by
microcomputers. Those people said the right things, and claimed they would
expand their product lines to include microcomputers, but they never did.

Generally speaking,  when an industry undergoes a radical transformation,
the leading, established companies do not make the transition. They go out
of business instead. See Christensen's book The Innovator's Dilemma.



  Most, like Shell's S.T.E.P. program are investing in new energy.


I predict they will not touch cold fusion until it is far too late.



   Why would Big Oil want to fight when they could join?


Because: 1. They have no relevant expertise and 2. Although cold fusion is
likely to expand the economy in the long term, the portion of the economy
devoted directly to the production of energy will contract by a factor a
thousand or more soon after cold fusion is introduced. That is to say, the
amount of money spent on primary energy production will resemble the amount
of money spent making ice after refrigeration was invented, or the amount
spent on typewriters and adding machines after hand calculators and
microcomputers were invented.

Note that before refrigeration, people used to make a good living cutting
ice on ponds, storing it, and selling it in summer.

After 1900 or so, ice was produced by refrigeration. However, well into the
1920s people still made a living delivering large chunks of ice for home
iceboxes. That was before home refrigerators became cheap and popular.



 And don't worry.  What remains of cheap fossil energy will be harvested.
 After all, free energy isn't really free.  There will always be a market
 for the oil at some price.


But the price will be so low, it will not be worth pumping the oil from the
ground or shipping it long distances. It will synthesized locally, on
demand, from garbage and water, or coal and water, or from air and water.
As I said, selling from the ground after cold fusion would be like trying
to sell ice cut from ponds today.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-24 Thread Jones Beene

Well said. Big Oil follows the buck, and will get into LENR early but not 
prematurely, when capital is most needed but after adequate proof. They will 
not likely push the technology forward, however … with one big exception.

 

Chevron was among the first in renewables, but backtracked when the profit was 
not as immediate as they planned. All it takes, for the floodgates of funding 
for LENR to open is a positive TIP report. An upcoming big date is the first 
week of November, and if Clean Planet delivers, we may witness a spectacle of 
massive cash availability from Asia and especially from China (which will push 
the technology).

 

“It’s not that oil companies dislike renewables,” says Oppenheimer “It’s just 
not their core business, or where they have expertise. They just don’t know 
what to do with it.”

 

… yet

 

From: Terry Blanton 

 

These are not stupid people.  They already realize the potential.  Most, like 
Shell's S.T.E.P. program are investing in new energy.  Why would Big Oil want 
to fight when they could join?  They are sitting on piles of cash awaiting to 
invest in the next big energy thing.  It's their business.

 

And don't worry.  What remains of cheap fossil energy will be harvested. After 
all, free energy isn't really free.  There will always be a market for the oil 
at some price.

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

I wrote:


 [Oil] will synthesized locally, on demand, from garbage and water, or coal
 and water, or from air and water.


Oil is already synthesized from garbage using depolymerization. This will
be very attractive with cold fusion for two reasons:

1. The producer is paid on both ends; paid to take the garbage, and paid
again for the oil. It is as if people paid Exxon Mobil to come to their
land and pump out the oil.

2. The main cost of depolymerization is for energy. The other equipment and
overhead is about the same as for refining oil from the ground.

Depolymerization could not supply all of the oil we now consume. But, oil
used for non-energy purposes is only around 20% of the total.
Depolymerization and other synthetics plus recycling could easily supply
this much. There would be no need for oil from the ground. It would soon be
much more expensive, especially when it has to be shipped from the Middle
East, as it would for countries such as Japan. Also, the infrastructure of
wells, oil tankers, refineries and so on is built for the present demand
level. It would not be economical used to supply only 20% of that demand.
You need smaller units for that, such as small, fully automatic machines
that produce plastic feedstock hydrocarbons from air and water right in
your factory.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net quoted someone:


 “It’s not that oil companies dislike renewables,” says Oppenheimer “It’s
 just not their core business, or where they have expertise. They just don’t
 know what to do with it.”



 … yet


Not yet, not ever. Not their core business hardly begins to describe the
situation with cold fusion. Oil companies have absolutely no relevant
expertise. Companies that make batteries, computer chips, instruments,
engines and many other small, high tech, high purity devices have the kind
of expertise it takes to make cold fusion devices. Oil companies do not.
You might as well expect them to go into the medical supplies business, or
the production of fiber optics. Their managers, technical staff, sales
department and everyone else in the company have no experience in such
businesses, and no academic degrees or hands-on experience. What are the
manager going to do? Fire everyone and hire the people at Union Carbide, or
the Eveready Battery Company instead? Why would the people from Union
Carbide go there, when they are looking at an opportunity to expand their
own company and take away Exxon's business for nothing? They are much
better positioned to eat Exxon's lunch where they are now, with their
company as it now exists. The markets will offer them all the capital they
need.

If a battery production company were to announce plans to dig an oil well
and build a refinery, people would say they are crazy. People would say
they will never be able to compete. Why would anyone take it seriously when
Exxon Mobil announces they are getting into the business of manufacturing
small devices that resemble batteries? (I predict there will never be large
cold fusion devices; only small ones, perhaps manufactured in large arrays,
similar to the uranium rods in a fission reactor.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-24 Thread Terry Blanton

But, have you considered how much cheaper it will be to pump oil from the
ground using a LENR source?  :-)

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

But, have you considered how much cheaper it will be to pump oil from the
 ground using a LENR source?  :-)


I have, actually. Pumping oil does take a lot of energy, but it is
basically overhead for the oil company. It reduces the total amount of oil
they can deliver, but it does not cost them anything. They don't have to
pay for the oil.

This energy is similar to the energy overhead it will take to operate a
cold fusion device -- the energy used to trigger the reaction and run the
control electronics. As long as the output from a cold fusion device is ~10
times greater than that overhead it makes no difference and costs no money.
The only advantage to a higher ratio is you can make more compact devices
with less waste heat. I am pretty sure that ratio will soon be more like
~100.

After you finish pumping and transporting oil with oil tankers or
pipelines, you then have to refine it. At that stage, the overhead cost of
machinery and production with cold fusion will be about the same as with
depolymerization, as I said. There is no advantage to natural oil. On the
contrary, the depolymerization people have already earned as much as the
oil company will earn, because they have a contract with the municipality
to treat their garbage.

In the next phase, you have to load the refined oil products -- gasoline or
feedstock chemicals -- into trucks and transport it to the customer sites.
Oil companies now have gigantic, centralized refineries close to where oil
tankers offload, or where pipelines terminate. So the refinery is far from
the customer, and you have to pay a lot to transport the product, by trucks
or railroads. With cold fusion the synthetic oil equipment will eventually
be installed right at the customer site. The only thing transported to the
customer factory will be air and water. No transportation involved. No
truck drivers or pipelines needed. Water is available everywhere at a cost
much lower than any other chemical, and air is everywhere on earth. (Mars
or the Moon will be a different story.)

Depolymerization from garbage can also be decentralized more easily than
conventional oil refineries can. Every city and town has a stream of
garbage.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-24 Thread Lennart Thornros

Good Morning Vortex,
There are many observations about the phenomena you talk about in regards
to the oil companies. It is often referred to as the S curve theory. The S
curve describe how a product becomes invented and has a very slow market
penetration (even the derivative is small). Than comes the expansion phase
and finally a dying off period ending with a collapse. Good earnings can be
accomplished in most stages the theories are very clear and if interested I
am sure you can find support on the net.
It has nothing to do with the expertise or how people does RD in different
companies today. Being the first to jump will cause problem so I think oil
companies must sit back and keep an eye on all things that will impact the
S curve of oil. You can see companies which did and did not jump to new
technology right away. Anybody remember Sylvania. It is very hard to
identify the right timing. A good and strong CEO will be the best advice
for the oil company that wants to jump at the right time.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM


On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 But, have you considered how much cheaper it will be to pump oil from the
 ground using a LENR source?  :-)

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-24 Thread Eric Walker

On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:15 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

This is exactly why so many question the science.   A good scientist should
 remain skeptical under these conditions and clearly the science is not
 settled as some seem to believe.


One doesn't need a fully worked out science to feel grave concern for the
world we're leaving our grandchildren.  All that is needed is to pay
attention to the few things we do know, and to have a reasonable sense that
these things could feed back into a dynamic system with unwanted
consequences.  We know, for instance, that CO2 has increased dramatically
over the last few hundred years:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/5koomey.png

We know as well that CH4 has similarly increased:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200409_methane/core2.gif

Perhaps some will be willing to question the attribution of these spikes to
human activity.  Personally, I would feel a little dirty trying to do so.

What does CO2 do to the climate?  Does it cause global temperatures to
increase?   (Include, here, as well, any other number of industrial
byproducts that obviously go back to humans.)  The scientists studying the
topic generally think so.   The temperature does not seem to increase
monotonically.  It clearly cannot increase without periodic behavior.  But
the average of the temperature appears to increase over a long enough
window.  This is what the people who have devoted years of their life
studying the topic are trying to tell us.

Will there be some huge compensating event that will shift the climate in
an opposite gear?  Perhaps.  I know that the tundra in the arctic regions
is thawing, and that there is a lot of methane that will be release as a
consequence, which suggests that the opposite will occur -- that there's a
risk that change towards higher temperatures could be shifted into a higher
gear.  It's a risk, in the sense that it is something whose consequences
are not fully clear should it come to pass.  But saying it's a risk isn't
the same as saying it's a negligible risk.

We can attack the climate scientists as being overconfident and their work
as guesswork.  In some ways their predicament is similar to that of physics
at the turn of the last century.  The physicists got some things wrong.
 But they got a lot of things right as well; enough to build a nuclear bomb
and thermonuclear weapons.  They did the messy, hard work of sorting
through some very difficult-to-interpret data, and using what they learned
they pulled these things out of thin air.  They foresaw these technological
developments years before they were actually created.  Climate scientists
are working with a similarly messy set of data and are trying to make
educated estimates about where things are going.  They will no doubt get
some important things wrong.  But I'm putting my bet on them getting the
most important stuff right.

Calling out some of the people involved in climate science who have fudged
numbers as representative of all of them feels a bit disingenuous to me.
 Because some were guilty of doing this does not impugn the entire lot.
 There's no reason to assume that the majority of climate scientists are
acting with anything but integrity, just as there's no reason to assume
that the majority of electrical engineers are acting with anything but
integrity.  (The same cannot be said, unfortunately, for politicians.)

We feel free to question a lot of physics in this forum in light of their
rejection of LENR experimental, as well as some obvious excesses by
physicists who have ventured into some pretty shaky territory with their
off-the-wall thought experiments.  The physicists who argue vocally against
LENR are not behaving as scientists, but rather as politicians.  This much
is obvious to us and eventually will be to the general public, so we go to
town with them.  But anyone who has read a few experimental papers from a
physics journal in the last few years will come away with the impression
that those who focus on what they know, as surely the majority of
physicists do, could not be on more solid ground.

My sense is that the majority of climate scientists are on similarly solid
ground.  Their consensus view is that human activity is leading to changes
in the climate, and that some of these changes could make life more
difficult, not necessarily for us, but for people several generations out,
and they have concrete, well-researched data to back up these conclusions.
 Count me as one who is listening attentively to what they have to say.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-24 Thread Jones Beene

From: Terry Blanton 

 

But, have you considered how much cheaper it will be to pump oil from the 
ground using a LENR source?  :-) 

 

Actually that is not sarcasm. It is likely that a prime early use of LENR will 
to extend the productive life of oilfields by a large factor. The USA has a 
sunk-cost infrastructure of 150,000,000 working vehicles, and the supply system 
for fuel delivery, so the economics of using LENR to leverage multi-trillion 
dollar legacy is a no-brainer. That is accomplished by bringing up deeper oil, 
and is actually a stronger incentive, economically - than using LENR as an 
alternative to the ICE… EVEN when the new technology lowers the value of the 
deeper oil! …at least for most consumers in the near term. Green activists do 
not want to believe this, but it is obvious to realists and most economists – 
nothing is more compelling economically than extending the lifetime of a sunk 
cost.

 

In terms of geology, it appears now that most if not all of the mega oil fields 
are sitting on top of deeper shale which was in fact - the original source of 
the now depleted lighter oils. That is the real lesson of the Bakken and 
fracking. 

 

This is why Texas has and will continued to lead in oil production – even after 
most of the shallow wells are depleted. There could 10 times more oil than 
realized if and when it can be pumped up from 2 miles. This will leverage the 
energy of LENR in a non-green way, but follow the buck… it will happen and 
politics will not likely change that. 

 

Look for Texas oil money to try to put their man in the White House next go 
around… even if he is a Canuck :-)

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-24 Thread hohlr...@gmail.com

Yes, but you are talking about the endgame. If we started making LENR gensets 
today, we'll still pump oil for decades.

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:global warming?

hohlr...@gmail.com hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

Yes, but you are talking about the endgame. If we started making LENR
gensets today, we'll still pump oil for decades.

One or two decades, but at the end of that time the industry will be in
catastrophic decline. To get a sense of how it is likely to work out, look
at U.S. railroad passenger traffic after the introduction of the Model T
Ford in 1908. By 1932 the railroads and especially their pension system had
to be rescued by Congress, and that was not just from the effects of the
Depression. Or, look at the decline of North Atlantic ocean liner
transportation after 1945, after the introduction of airplane service. By
1955 ocean liner service was dead.

The actual final demise of an industry may come decades after a
catastrophic decline. The last U.S. telegram was sent in 2006. However,
telegrams ceased to play any role in the economy by 1960. They were doomed
after the introduction of direct dial long distance telephone service in
1951, which was reasonably cheap compared to previous long distance
service. In other words, there may be some oil pumped out of the ground 100
years from now, but the amounts will trivial compared to today. It will
only be used because for some odd reason such as a large plastic production
factory happens to be located on top of an oil field.

You sometimes find old factories and a long obsolete machine still in use.
Here is a well-known example. A company in Texas uses a 1948 punch card
machine:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/249951/if_it_aint_broke_dont_fix_it_ancient_computers_in_use_today.html

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-24 Thread CB Sites

I've wondered if the Oil industry isn't just trying to stall other forms of
energy until the inventory of Oil is used up.   This is also a race against
mankind's interests in reducing greenhouse gasses.  This is a rough
estimate, but there are only about 40 years left of oil.  Here are the
calculations;

Total world oil reservers is ~1,35 Trillion Barrels.  Average daily oil
consumption is estimated at ~85.6 million barrels/day.  1350GB /
0.0856GB/day = 15771 days of oil left.  15771 / 356 days/year = 44 years of
oil left.  +/- a couple of years.

In addition, this is the approximate CO2 produced by that oil to be added
on to the 400ppm we already have;
3.15 barrels produces 1.0 tonne of CO2. So in 44 years, we will have dumped
1350GB/3.15 TCo2/B = 428,571,428,571 TonsCO2 (429 GTons CO2).

Every 15 GT CO2 will rise CO2 by 1.0ppm.  50ppm will rise global temps by
1C.  429/15=28.6ppm or ~0.6C gain from now
until oil is used up in 40 years or so.

Similar calculations on coal will yield a 1.30C change in the same time
period, and combined with oil it give 1.58C global average temp change in
40 years.  Coal us in the developing countries has increased exponentially
so this really could be an underestimate.  If there is a 2C rise in global
average temperatures occurs by 2050, (in line with these estimates), 4C by
2100 is very likely and if coal use is accelerating, a 6C change is really
likely.

Sadly for mankind, the corporate world is more than happy to do the waiting
game and continue to gather huge profits from stone age polluting
technologies for years to come.

.




On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

   *From:* Terry Blanton



 But, have you considered how much cheaper it will be to pump oil from the
 ground using a LENR source?  :-)



 Actually that is not sarcasm. It is likely that a prime early use of LENR
 will to extend the productive life of oilfields by a large factor. The USA
 has a sunk-cost infrastructure of 150,000,000 working vehicles, and the
 supply system for fuel delivery, so the economics of using LENR to leverage
 multi-trillion dollar legacy is a no-brainer. That is accomplished by
 bringing up deeper oil, and is actually a stronger incentive, economically
 - than using LENR as an alternative to the ICE… EVEN when the new
 technology lowers the value of the deeper oil! …at least for most consumers
 in the near term. Green activists do not want to believe this, but it is
 obvious to realists and most economists – nothing is more compelling
 economically than extending the lifetime of a sunk cost.



 In terms of geology, it appears now that most if not all of the mega oil
 fields are sitting on top of deeper shale which was in fact - the original
 source of the now depleted lighter oils. That is the real lesson of the
 Bakken and fracking.



 This is why Texas has and will continued to lead in oil production – even
 after most of the shallow wells are depleted. There could 10 times more oil
 than realized if and when it can be pumped up from 2 miles. This will
 leverage the energy of LENR in a non-green way, but follow the buck… it
 will happen and politics will not likely change that.



 Look for Texas oil money to try to put their man in the White House next
 go around… even if he is a Canuck J

Re: [Vo]:global warming?


Eric, I suppose the difference between your beliefs and mine amounts to my 
expectation that the climate change scientists should be held to a high 
standard as is required of most other endeavors.  You apparently are willing to 
give them a free pass since you have a gut feeling that they are right to some 
degree.
 
I have modeled many electronic systems as well as some physics behaviors and 
realize how easy it is to make bad assumptions.  For a short time frame almost 
any model can be made to curve fit the existing data to achieve a near perfect 
match.  As the time frame advances, the fit typically begins to accelerate in 
error until there is very little correlation remaining.

Weather forecast is virtually perfect for the next hour at most locations but 
hopeless in predicting what will happen in a week.  I view the global warming 
modeling process in a similar manner.  The reason this happens is that the 
forcing functions in many cases are random but have been active for many 
thousand years and many obscure variables act in concert to get us to where we 
are today.  There have been volcano eruptions, solar flares, etc. in the past 
which have modified the present climate conditions.  Any intelligent model 
generator can choose a number of variables with enough leeway to curve fit data 
from the more recent past, so it would be extremely unusual to find errors in 
the fit to historical data.

So it should be considered a given that the present models appear to match data 
from say 100 years past.  This state of the art is now being used to predict 
the terrible future environment that the politicians are trying to protect us 
from.  No one seems to recall that the models are being adjusted every few 
years in order to take into account variables that were previously neglected.  
It was just recent that the ocean currents were included even though those same 
scientists thought that their models were sound previous to that addition.  How 
can I consider this good science?  How many more discoveries remain which will 
modify the message?  There are many, many assumptions being made about how the 
warming gases interact with water, which is the main warming gas by far.  It 
seems reasonable to begin with the most important issue, which is water in its 
various phases, and to then find out how it is influenced by the other much 
smaller component gasses.

I have read about an important theory concerning how solar activity modifies 
the flux of changed cosmic rays which in turn greatly effects cloud formation.  
Everyone can see on a daily basis how much cooling immediately appears when 
clouds pass over an area.  That is anything but subtle.  It would only take a 
couple of per cent change in the reflectance of the earth due to additional 
clouds in order to begin a major overall cooling period.  These same scientists 
have followed their theory back for thousands of years and find remarkable 
correlation between the solar activity and the estimated earth's temperature.  
My gut feeling is that they have found one of the most important factors which 
the other climate change modelers neglect entirely.

So, how are we as a society supposed to evaluate the output of the global 
warming scientists?  It makes perfect sense to expect them to be able to 
demonstrate correlation between their predictions and what actually happens a 
few years into the future.  Few can say that they did not fail in this test, 
especially when they now admit that the present pause in warming might be 
extended until 2025(check BBC current article).  Come on guys, get real as was 
once commonly said.  Prove to us that you are not just curve fitting the past 
and can actually predict the future climate.  Until that time, we had better 
keep our hands on our wallets since the politicians believe that this is an 
issue they can use to fatten the tax bite.

Perhaps I demand too high of a standard for scientific output, especially when 
the economic and social impact of mistaken predictions will be massive.  No 
free passes as far as I am concerned.

Dave
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Aug 24, 2014 1:11 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?



On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:15 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


This is exactly why so many question the science.   A good scientist should 
remain skeptical under these conditions and clearly the science is not settled 
as some seem to believe.




One doesn't need a fully worked out science to feel grave concern for the world 
we're leaving our grandchildren.  All that is needed is to pay attention to the 
few things we do know, and to have a reasonable sense that these things could 
feed back into a dynamic system with unwanted consequences.  We know, for 
instance, that CO2 has increased dramatically over the last few hundred years:


http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 It is likely that a prime early use of LENR will to extend the productive
 life of oilfields by a large factor. The USA has a sunk-cost infrastructure
 of 150,000,000 working vehicles . . .


That does not mean much. The average U.S. automobile lasts 8 to 11 years,
depending on which estimate you believe. After 15 years practically none of
today's fleet of automobiles will still be in use. My car is 20 years old
and I am having more and more trouble finding parts and having it inspected.

Once the production of cold fusion automobiles begins, I predict that most
gasoline cars will be off the road in 15 years. Gasoline sales will fall by
more than half, and most gas stations will go out of business. That will
force the remaining gasoline car owners to trade in quickly. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthefuturem.pdf



 , and the supply system for fuel delivery, so the economics of using LENR
 to leverage multi-trillion dollar legacy is a no-brainer.


The legacy will be worth nothing. The infrastructure of refineries,
pipelines and tanker ships will be a pile of rusting scrap steel, like the
ocean liner docks in New York City in 1960, or an abandoned railroad line,
or the fleets of B-29 bombers and landing craft in 1946.



 Green activists do not want to believe this, but it is obvious to realists
 and most economists – nothing is more compelling economically than
 extending the lifetime of a sunk cost.


You cannot extend anything without customers! People will have no use for
gasoline, and the other products made from oil will be cheaper made from
garbage. Selling oil 20 years after the introduction of cold fusion would
be like trying to sell IBM 360 mainframe computers today. There must have
been a trillion dollars worth of mainframe computers in operation in 1985.
They are all gone. That is why IBM almost went out of business in the late
1980s.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-24 Thread hohlr...@gmail.com

So, when did the a stop gathering horse biscuits in NYC?   :-)

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-24 Thread hohlr...@gmail.com

Actually that was a plot in a movie.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone

- Reply message -
From: CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:global warming?
Date: Sun, Aug 24, 2014 2:49 PM

I've wondered if the Oil industry isn't just trying to stall other forms of 
energy until the inventory of Oil is used up.   This is also a race against 
mankind's interests in reducing greenhouse gasses.  This is a rough estimate, 
but there are only about 40 years left of oil.  Here are the calculations;

Total world oil reservers is ~1,35 Trillion Barrels.  Average daily oil 
consumption is estimated at ~85.6 million barrels/day.  1350GB / 0.0856GB/day = 
15771 days of oil left.  15771 / 356 days/year = 44 years of oil left.  +/- a 
couple of years.

In addition, this is the approximate CO2 produced by that oil to be added on to 
the 400ppm we already have;
3.15 barrels produces 1.0 tonne of CO2. So in 44 years, we will have dumped 

1350GB/3.15 TCo2/B = 428,571,428,571 TonsCO2 (429 GTons CO2).  

Every 15 GT CO2 will rise CO2 by 1.0ppm.  50ppm will rise global temps by 1C.  
429/15=28.6ppm or ~0.6C gain from now

until oil is used up in 40 years or so.

Similar calculations on coal will yield a 1.30C change in the same time period, 
and combined with oil it give 1.58C global average temp change in 40 years.  
Coal us in the developing countries has increased exponentially so this really 
could be an underestimate.  If there is a 2C rise in global average 
temperatures occurs by 2050, (in line with these estimates), 4C by 2100 is very 
likely and if coal use is accelerating, a 6C change is really likely.

Sadly for mankind, the corporate world is more than happy to do the waiting 
game and continue to gather huge profits from stone age polluting technologies 
for years to come.

. 

On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

From:
Terry Blanton 

But, have you considered how much cheaper it will be
to pump oil from the ground using a LENR source?  :-) 

Actually that is not
sarcasm. It is likely that a prime early use of LENR will to extend the 
productive
life of oilfields by a large factor. The USA has a sunk-cost infrastructure of
150,000,000 working vehicles, and the supply system for fuel delivery, so the
economics of using LENR to leverage multi-trillion dollar legacy is a
no-brainer. That is accomplished by bringing up deeper oil, and is actually a 
stronger
incentive, economically - than using LENR as an alternative to the ICE… EVEN
when the new technology lowers the value of the deeper oil! …at least for most 
consumers
in the near term. Green activists do not want to believe this, but it is
obvious to realists and most economists – nothing is more compelling
economically than extending the lifetime of a sunk cost.

In terms of geology, it appears
now that most if not all of the mega oil fields are sitting on top of deeper
shale which was in fact - the original source of the now depleted lighter oils.
That is the real lesson of the Bakken and fracking. 

This is why Texas has and
will continued to lead in oil production – even after most of the shallow wells
are depleted. There could 10 times more oil than realized if and when it can be
pumped up from 2 miles. This will leverage the energy of LENR in a non-green
way, but follow the buck… it will happen and politics will not likely change 
that.

Look for Texas oil money to
try to put their man in the White House next go around… even if he is a Canuck J

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Weather forecast is virtually perfect for the next hour at most locations
 but hopeless in predicting what will happen in a week.  I view the global
 warming modeling process in a similar manner.


As I pointed out, and as countless climate experts have pointed out, you
have no justification for this view of yours. Long term climate prediction
and near term weather prediction are related in some ways, but they are
VERY DIFFERENT in important ways. That is what the experts say. They give
compelling reasons. You are ignoring their reasons. You resemble a
self-appointed expert on Wikipedia writing bogus reasons not to believe
tritium measurements in cold fusion.

Your demand is irrational. It is, as I said, like demanding that an
epidemiologist or a life insurance expert tell you the year and month that
you yourself will die from disease. Just because we can predict these
things for large groups of people that does not give us the ability to
predict it for individuals. The ability to make long term predictions of
the climate is an entirely different science from weather prediction. One
cannot be held to the standards of the other.



 So, how are we as a society supposed to evaluate the output of the global
 warming scientists?  It makes perfect sense to expect them to be able to
 demonstrate correlation between their predictions and what actually happens
 a few years into the future.


Says who? Where did you get that information? Who told you that climatology
should work a few years in the future? Do you also make claims about the
timescale of theories and models in chemistry in physics that you have not
studied? Are you going to say that a calorimeter with a 1-hour timescale
should work equally well measuring a heat burst lasting 10 milliseconds?

If they do not make predictions a few years into the future, they probably
have good reasons. Unless you know a great deal about their work, and you
have evaluated their reasons, you have no business second guessing them or
making demands. People should never assume they know more than experts!
That has been the whole problem with cold fusion from day one. People think
they know more about electrochemistry and calorimetry than Fleischmann. You
sound like the people who tell me that if cold fusion is real, we should
have cold fusion powered automobiles by now. They have no idea what the
problems are, or what the limitations of the science are.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-24 Thread Eric Walker

On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Eric, I suppose the difference between your beliefs and mine amounts to my
 expectation that the climate change scientists should be held to a high
 standard as is required of most other endeavors.  You apparently are
 willing to give them a free pass since you have a gut feeling that they are
 right to some degree.


I don't think anyone is arguing for giving climate scientists a free pass
for anything they want to do, anymore than we would argue here for giving
physicists a free pass to endlessly pour money into ITER or the National
Ignition Facility; certainly not me.  I'm arguing for humility before
expertise gradually developed in understanding a wicked problem.  We can
question policy and funding decisions that are based on uncertain
conclusions.  But stepping in and saying that we (the general public) are
in as good a position to weigh the data as capable climate scientists is to
lose a sense of the proportion in the face of the amount of time and effort
that must be expended to discern signal from noise in a complex domain.

Without such humility, we are prone to a little bit of unintentional
hubris.  It is similar to making the following statements as members of the
general public:

   - What you electrical engineers are saying about instantaneous power is
   bunk.  I know that if the sine and the cosine fluctuate too rapidly,
   they'll jam together like the keys on a typewriter and throw the power out
   of hoc.
   - Making a practical quantum computer is not as hard as you guys make it
   out to be, for I have built one out of an erector set and rubber bands and
   know something about the basic principles involved.
   - Moore's law is not at all insurmountable.  The electrical engineers
   are simply failing to see that if you add in some refrigeration lines, the
   temperature will be sufficiently decreased to allow a continued exponential
   increase in circuit density.  This is simple thermodynamics.

This is probably what we sound like to people who have studied climate
science when we interject with our analyses without having spent years of
our lives trying to understand the nuances of the problem.  One hesitates
to do something similar in the context of LENR, and only does so because
almost no one who has the proper qualifications is willing to undergo the
stigma that will attach to anyone in physics who publicly examines LENR.

The overfitting of a model to a set of data is a generally known risk, and
ways of avoiding it are taught in undergraduate courses.  If we do not give
climate scientists the benefit of the doubt on this one, we will be
proceeding from an assumption that they're incompetent.

In trying to understand what climate scientists are doing, I would draw an
analogy to using our knowledge of radioactive decay half-lives to
understand how much of a radionuclide will exist after a certain amount of
time.  Because the process is a stochastic one, the knowledge of the
half-life is close to useless in predicting whether an individual nucleus
will decay at a certain time.  But over a period of time, the half-life
will allow one to calculate the amount of the original radionuclide
remaining to within a high degree of precision.  I doubt that this ability
was something that was acquired overnight.  It probably took a few years of
trial and error to empirically tease out the exponential decay relation.
 But even when they were working with less than reliable models, I'm
guessing they were able to discern the general trend.

Another analogy to what climate scientists are trying to do is to that of a
mechanical engineer attempting to predict the temperature of an engine that
has been running for a certain period of time.  It is probably difficult to
predict the temperature at a specific thermocouple at an instance in time
beyond a certain broad range.  But I'm guessing that it's not too hard to
anticipate the average temperature across the thermocouples after one has
become familiar with the operating characteristics of the engine in
question.  Climate scientists are doing something similar, but at a stage
when the laws of thermodynamics were less well understood.  Nonetheless
general trends can be discerned.

I would not at all be surprised if the relevant time ranges for useful
predictions in climate change models were on the order of decades.  Each
system being modeled has its own range of times within which statements are
relevant.  In some nuclear decays, the time range for some decays is on the
order of 10^-8 - 10^-20 seconds.  I would be surprised, in fact, if climate
scientists were able to bring model predictions to within less than tens of
years, given the great amount of latency involved for changes to show up in
the system.

As for climate scientists adjusting their models periodically in the face
of new facts, I am reminded of a quote attributed to Keynes, who was
responding to a similar

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

I don't think anyone is arguing for giving climate scientists a free pass
 for anything they want to do, anymore than we would argue here for giving
 physicists a free pass to endlessly pour money into ITER or the National
 Ignition Facility; certainly not me.  I'm arguing for humility before
 expertise gradually developed in understanding a wicked problem.


Exactly! Plus, there are several experts in plasma fusion who question the
wisdom of building ITER. Yes, there are also some climatologists who
question global warming, but I think the consensus is stronger than it is
for ITER. We should respect a consensus of experts. Granted, sometimes a
small number of dissenting experts within a field are right, and the
majority is wrong. A consensus is not magic, or automatically right. But an
outsider should be wary about challenging it.

There is a false consensus regarding cold fusion. That is, a consensus
among people who are not experts, but who imagine themselves to be. That
doesn't count. It resembles the consensus of opinion up until 1908 that
flying machines are impossible. The problem here is knowing who is an
expert and who isn't. That can be difficult to determine when you yourself
are not an expert. This problem is discussed here:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html


But stepping in and saying that we (the general public) are in as good a
 position to weigh the data as capable climate scientists is to lose a sense
 of the proportion in the face of the amount of time and effort that must be
 expended to discern signal from noise in a complex domain.

 Without such humility, we are prone to a little bit of unintentional
 hubris.


We sure are!




- Moore's law is not at all insurmountable.  The electrical engineers
are simply failing to see that if you add in some refrigeration lines, the
temperature will be sufficiently decreased to allow a continued exponential
increase in circuit density.  This is simple thermodynamics.

 This is probably what we sound like to people who have studied climate
 science when we interject with our analyses without having spent years of
 our lives trying to understand the nuances of the problem.


Good example! That is how people who critique cold fusion sound to me. They
have some partially related knowledge which they mis-apply. They assume the
cold fusion researchers have not thought through the problem, or that they
do not know the ABCs of chemistry and electrochemistry. For example, in the
assertions that Fleischmann may have overlooked the effects of
recombination, or that he accidentally reinvented the palladium cigarette
lighter. As if he, of all people, would not know about that lighter!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-24 Thread Jojo Iznart

We scare people with 6C temp rise but we ofter neglect to examine what a 6C 
rise really means.

I submit that it won't be bad, in fact, I believe it would be beneficial to 
mankind.  More planting seasons, more planting land reclaimed from ice, and 
more steady temps in temperate regions for more consistent crop yields.  The 
downside is a few low lying areas will be inundated (including my place here in 
Philippines) - if the predictions are accurate.  Reasonable tradeoff I think 
for this worst case scenario.

But, the more basic problem is, global warming alarmist still has to explain 
why our global temps have been steady for at least a decade now in the face of 
accelerating carbon emissions.  Why is that? and please don't tell me that it 
is due to Global warming.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: CB Sites 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 2:49 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?


  I've wondered if the Oil industry isn't just trying to stall other forms of 
energy until the inventory of Oil is used up.   This is also a race against 
mankind's interests in reducing greenhouse gasses.  This is a rough estimate, 
but there are only about 40 years left of oil.  Here are the calculations;


  Total world oil reservers is ~1,35 Trillion Barrels.  Average daily oil 
consumption is estimated at ~85.6 million barrels/day.  1350GB / 0.0856GB/day = 
15771 days of oil left.  15771 / 356 days/year = 44 years of oil left.  +/- a 
couple of years.


  In addition, this is the approximate CO2 produced by that oil to be added on 
to the 400ppm we already have;
  3.15 barrels produces 1.0 tonne of CO2. So in 44 years, we will have dumped 
  1350GB/3.15 TCo2/B = 428,571,428,571 TonsCO2 (429 GTons CO2).  


  Every 15 GT CO2 will rise CO2 by 1.0ppm.  50ppm will rise global temps by 1C. 
 429/15=28.6ppm or ~0.6C gain from now
  until oil is used up in 40 years or so.


  Similar calculations on coal will yield a 1.30C change in the same time 
period, and combined with oil it give 1.58C global average temp change in 40 
years.  Coal us in the developing countries has increased exponentially so this 
really could be an underestimate.  If there is a 2C rise in global average 
temperatures occurs by 2050, (in line with these estimates), 4C by 2100 is very 
likely and if coal use is accelerating, a 6C change is really likely.


  Sadly for mankind, the corporate world is more than happy to do the waiting 
game and continue to gather huge profits from stone age polluting technologies 
for years to come.


  . 







  On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

From: Terry Blanton 



But, have you considered how much cheaper it will be to pump oil from the 
ground using a LENR source?  :-) 



Actually that is not sarcasm. It is likely that a prime early use of LENR 
will to extend the productive life of oilfields by a large factor. The USA has 
a sunk-cost infrastructure of 150,000,000 working vehicles, and the supply 
system for fuel delivery, so the economics of using LENR to leverage 
multi-trillion dollar legacy is a no-brainer. That is accomplished by bringing 
up deeper oil, and is actually a stronger incentive, economically - than using 
LENR as an alternative to the ICE… EVEN when the new technology lowers the 
value of the deeper oil! …at least for most consumers in the near term. Green 
activists do not want to believe this, but it is obvious to realists and most 
economists – nothing is more compelling economically than extending the 
lifetime of a sunk cost.



In terms of geology, it appears now that most if not all of the mega oil 
fields are sitting on top of deeper shale which was in fact - the original 
source of the now depleted lighter oils. That is the real lesson of the Bakken 
and fracking. 



This is why Texas has and will continued to lead in oil production – even 
after most of the shallow wells are depleted. There could 10 times more oil 
than realized if and when it can be pumped up from 2 miles. This will leverage 
the energy of LENR in a non-green way, but follow the buck… it will happen and 
politics will not likely change that. 



Look for Texas oil money to try to put their man in the White House next go 
around… even if he is a Canuck J

Re: [Vo]:global warming?


Jed, you missed my point entirely.  I was not equating weather measurement and 
prediction to climate change prediction.  Perhaps I was not clear enough within 
my discussion.  I merely pointed out that the divergence of accurate results 
happens relatively rapidly in both of these different types of systems.  
Weather forecasting appears to diverge from accurate prediction in a matter of 
days whereas the climate errors take years to accumulate.  Compare this 
behavior to what happens with a well defined polynomial curve which is accurate 
for essentially all values even when you stretch the time frame far into the 
future.
 
If the polynomial function is known then it is possible to begin with a small 
set of input/output data and project those values without increasing error.  
Climate models are not showing that behavior to anything but a short time 
period.  Are you ignoring the latest information that now the climatologists 
have decided that there is a 30 year cycle associated with Atlantic currents?  
Surely that same effect has been modifying the earlier data.  Why was it not 
taken into account at that time?  Why do the modelers now say that the present 
pause in temperature rise might last until 2025?  Do you not consider this to 
be a new input?  I realize that you have argued for a long time that there is 
no pause, but apparently the guys studying the models disagree with your 
assessment.  What will be the next major surprise and when will it appear?

It amazes me to read that you feel that it is not important to expect the 
climate models to conform to reality.  How else can one judge their accuracy?   
Perhaps many such as yourself have concluded that global warming is man made 
and real so forget the models because they are not trustworthy.  I can not make 
that step into uncertainty when the stakes are so high.  If we base our 
response upon a known bad system then we are going to make major mistakes in 
judgement.  What if the pause becomes a steady temperature decline in the next 
few years?  Do we remain on the same path regardless of the measurements since 
the models indicate otherwise?  That does not constitute good science and you 
have been arguing against that type of reasoning forever with regard to LENR.

I wonder how man made climate change proponents can so easily dismiss water 
vapor as the most important influence?  Clouds show their ability to modify 
local temperature just about every day and to a very large extent.  When it 
rains the temperature drops about 20 degrees around here.  Of course there are 
various reasons for the change but the overall measurement is dramatic and much 
greater than anything expected as the carbon dioxide increases into the future.

The reason that water vapor is left out of the debate as far as I can determine 
is that nothing can be directly done to modify it by mankind.  The modelers 
appear to realize that water is the key, but they only include affects that 
their models suggest that carbon dioxide and other gases do to modify waters 
dominate behavior.  And worse than that is the fact that they assign a 
multiplier with positive feedback to this coupling as part of a curve fitting 
process.  The latest pause strongly suggests that the system is not working 
like they previously thought.  

Jed, you should be showing why we should trust the experts that you refer to 
instead of attacking those of us with a skeptical view of their progress.  
After all, many of them now admit that a new major problem exists in their 
models that could result in long term inaccurate prediction of the temperature 
rise.   How should we read confidence into a statement that the pause might 
well last another 11 years?  Do they mean 5 years, or could it be 30 years, 
forever, etc?  Do you ever question experts?  An open minded individual such as 
yourself must look at the latest facts on occasion.  

I do in fact reserve the right to demand that these guys get their predictions 
into order if we are to use those same predictions to generate policies that 
impact our lives.  If they can not perform that function in a reasonable and 
accurate manner, then they should refrain from offering their advice to 
politicians.  That is just common sense.

I suppose I was expecting a debate on those facts instead of reference to 
experts that are not required to generate accurate predictions.  It is also 
clear that global warming is one of those issues that encourages people to 
choose sides.  Little can be gained in discussing such a polarizing topic and I 
get little pleasure out of endless misunderstandings.  Perhaps we should wait 
those next 11 years of likely pause and take up the issue again.

Dave
 


 
 
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Aug 24, 2014 4:05 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?



David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


Weather forecast is virtually perfect

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-24 Thread ChemE Stewart

High CO2 good for plants and Dinosaurs

http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html

Bring back T Rex


On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

  We scare people with 6C temp rise but we ofter neglect to examine what a
 6C rise really means.

 I submit that it won't be bad, in fact, I believe it would be beneficial
 to mankind.  More planting seasons, more planting land reclaimed from ice,
 and more steady temps in temperate regions for more consistent crop
 yields.  The downside is a few low lying areas will be inundated (including
 my place here in Philippines) - if the predictions are accurate.
 Reasonable tradeoff I think for this worst case scenario.

 But, the more basic problem is, global warming alarmist still has to
 explain why our global temps have been steady for at least a decade now in
 the face of accelerating carbon emissions.  Why is that? and please don't
 tell me that it is due to Global warming.


 Jojo



 - Original Message -
 *From:* CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Monday, August 25, 2014 2:49 AM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:global warming?

 I've wondered if the Oil industry isn't just trying to stall other forms
 of energy until the inventory of Oil is used up.   This is also a race
 against mankind's interests in reducing greenhouse gasses.  This is a rough
 estimate, but there are only about 40 years left of oil.  Here are the
 calculations;

  Total world oil reservers is ~1,35 Trillion Barrels.  Average daily oil
 consumption is estimated at ~85.6 million barrels/day.  1350GB /
 0.0856GB/day = 15771 days of oil left.  15771 / 356 days/year = 44 years of
 oil left.  +/- a couple of years.

 In addition, this is the approximate CO2 produced by that oil to be added
 on to the 400ppm we already have;
 3.15 barrels produces 1.0 tonne of CO2. So in 44 years, we will have
 dumped
 1350GB/3.15 TCo2/B = 428,571,428,571 TonsCO2 (429 GTons CO2).

 Every 15 GT CO2 will rise CO2 by 1.0ppm.  50ppm will rise global temps by
 1C.  429/15=28.6ppm or ~0.6C gain from now
 until oil is used up in 40 years or so.

 Similar calculations on coal will yield a 1.30C change in the same time
 period, and combined with oil it give 1.58C global average temp change in
 40 years.  Coal us in the developing countries has increased exponentially
 so this really could be an underestimate.  If there is a 2C rise in global
 average temperatures occurs by 2050, (in line with these estimates), 4C by
 2100 is very likely and if coal use is accelerating, a 6C change is really
 likely.

 Sadly for mankind, the corporate world is more than happy to do the
 waiting game and continue to gather huge profits from stone age polluting
 technologies for years to come.

 .




 On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

   *From:* Terry Blanton



 But, have you considered how much cheaper it will be to pump oil from the
 ground using a LENR source?  :-)



 Actually that is not sarcasm. It is likely that a prime early use of LENR
 will to extend the productive life of oilfields by a large factor. The USA
 has a sunk-cost infrastructure of 150,000,000 working vehicles, and the
 supply system for fuel delivery, so the economics of using LENR to leverage
 multi-trillion dollar legacy is a no-brainer. That is accomplished by
 bringing up deeper oil, and is actually a stronger incentive, economically
 - than using LENR as an alternative to the ICE… EVEN when the new
 technology lowers the value of the deeper oil! …at least for most consumers
 in the near term. Green activists do not want to believe this, but it is
 obvious to realists and most economists – nothing is more compelling
 economically than extending the lifetime of a sunk cost.



 In terms of geology, it appears now that most if not all of the mega oil
 fields are sitting on top of deeper shale which was in fact - the original
 source of the now depleted lighter oils. That is the real lesson of the
 Bakken and fracking.



 This is why Texas has and will continued to lead in oil production – even
 after most of the shallow wells are depleted. There could 10 times more oil
 than realized if and when it can be pumped up from 2 miles. This will
 leverage the energy of LENR in a non-green way, but follow the buck… it
 will happen and politics will not likely change that.



 Look for Texas oil money to try to put their man in the White House next
 go around… even if he is a Canuck J

Re: [Vo]:global warming?