Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
Goodness!!! I didn't see this one (or your previous one). What I'm saying is that you can put all these facts down on as many dead trees as you like, but ultimately I have to rely on these facts being... well... facts. Problem with playing with facts, is that they're great for spouting off about, but nobody seems to be able to DO anything about them, including categorizing them and suggesting practical methods for implementing them. I'm not blaming anyone, but having been in the alternate energy engineering business, I know the I've got a mouth and a good idea situation only too well. Look around you at the number of critics on every subject, and ask yourself (or better still, ask any of them) if they can take their esteemed intellects one step past their mouths and into some form of rational action. Philip. At 09:26 PM 3/15/2006 -0900, you wrote: On Mar 15, 2006, at 6:36 PM, Philip Winestone wrote: ...I really can't be bothered arguing how many PV modules can dance on the head of a pin. Yes, all those facts can be so annoying. Horace Heffner
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
Nick Palmer wrote: Thomas Malloy wrote to the lone wolf meteorologist Roy Spencer and was directed by the reply to his website of serious articles http://www.tcsdaily.com/Authors.aspx?id=267 Mr Spencer further poured scorn on the piece of popular journalism at http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0222-27.htm by saying I would say that is the most irresponsible piece of journalism I have ever read on climate issues Dr. Spencer contends that water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas. Undersea volcanoes could well account for the observed events; melting of the edges of the arctic icecaps, thickening of the centers of the icecaps, and increase in temperature generally. Is this man not one of the most irresponsible people you can imagine? That depends on how you look at it, Nick. IMHO if you are right, there's nothing we can do about it anyway. C to C AM has had three interviewes, who questioned the Global Warming hypothesis, one of whom made the case that we are entering an ice age. Later Keith Nagel wrote; Dow index / Jan 2000 - 11,500 Jan 2006 - 10,780 aggregate US economic growth, -6% Roaring, Rev? How about whimpering like a pimpslapped bitch. No point in addressing the rest. Please reconnect to reality and try again. Operators are standing by. whimpering compaired to what? The youngest people who can remember the great depression are pushing 70. The system can't be even throtled back without crashing. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
Nick Palmer wrote: I first heard it when I was talking to one of the politicians (Economics Minister) in my own fair Jersey about 10 years ago when he metaphorically patted me on the head and (paraphrasing) said don't you realise, little Green person, that we need more economic growth to pay for the environmental clean up that you say is needed! This is a bit like a drug user saying they need even more drugs to get their life back in order... That's true. That's the point I was trying to make. We need less economic activity, not more. A large fraction of economic activity is annoying waste that nobody really wants: things like traffic jams, and overly-bright street lights that interfere with sleep and disrupt nocturnal species. On the other hand, we do need a high level of industrial RD capability to fix these problems. For example, a third-world country mired in hopeless poverty will not invent a fiber-optic telecommunting infrastructure to reduce traffic jams. But once these things are invented, poor but educated countries India or Pakistan can build a telecom system and use it to offshore jobs from the U.S! I hope they are also using it to reduce traffic jams within India, by building small, satellite offices to reduce commuting distances. It would be ironic of programmers in India drive for an hour through choked traffic in order to do on-line work for companies that are thousands of miles away. - Jed
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
On Mar 15, 2006, at 5:52 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Nick Palmer wrote: I first heard it when I was talking to one of the politicians (Economics Minister) in my own fair Jersey about 10 years ago when he metaphorically patted me on the head and (paraphrasing) said don't you realise, little Green person, that we need more economic growth to pay for the environmental clean up that you say is needed! This is a bit like a drug user saying they need even more drugs to get their life back in order... That's true. That's the point I was trying to make. We need less economic activity, not more. A large fraction of economic activity is annoying waste that nobody really wants: things like traffic jams, and overly-bright street lights that interfere with sleep and disrupt nocturnal species. With the right policies we can have have economic activity like never before - and all to the good side. Vehicle replacement with energy efficient vehicles is a huge economic opportunity. Building a new energy infrastructure is a huge opportunity, especially in housing retrofits. Manufacture of renewable energy generation systems, not just for a few countries, but for the world, is a colossal opportunity. We have the opportunity to make the WWII boom look like a minor blip. Before this can happen, unfortunately, the people have to wake up to what is going on, what could happen depending of courses of action chosen, and what it all means to them directly.
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
Horace Heffner wrote: With the right policies we can have have economic activity like never before - and all to the good side. Vehicle replacement with energy efficient vehicles is a huge economic opportunity. I disagree. This will only call for the construction of some production lines, which is not a big deal. The cars will be replaced as the old ones wear out, which means there will be no increase or decrease in economic activity. Building a new energy infrastructure is a huge opportunity . . . This would be expensive! And worth it, we hope. . . . especially in housing tetrofits. Not such a big deal. In the U.S. $1,000 per house would do wonders. $10,000 per house would improve that by much. Manufacture of renewable energy generation systems, not just for a few countries, but for the world, is a colossal opportunity. Yes indeed! CF, on the other hand, would cost less than nothing, and CF all by itself would only reduce economic activity, not increase it. If we end up consuming the same amount of energy with the same set of machines, we reduce the world economy by $2.8 trillion per year, and add nothing. That outcome seems unlikely to me. The money people save is likely to go somewhere else instead. - Jed
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
Manufacture of renewable energy generation systems, not just for a few countries, but for the world, is a colossal opportunity. In certain countries such as India and Africa, small, self-contained systems, such as for pumping irrigation water, or powering comfort fans, can work wonders. For countries such as the US and Canada, renewable power such as solar energy is quite inadequate. Power sources such as small hydro, where to some extent the power output is consistent, is attractive, as is biomass to some extent. But in order to capitalize on biomass, there have to be some logistical structures in place. P. At 02:37 PM 3/15/2006 -0500, you wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: With the right policies we can have have economic activity like never before - and all to the good side. Vehicle replacement with energy efficient vehicles is a huge economic opportunity. I disagree. This will only call for the construction of some production lines, which is not a big deal. The cars will be replaced as the old ones wear out, which means there will be no increase or decrease in economic activity. Building a new energy infrastructure is a huge opportunity . . . This would be expensive! And worth it, we hope. . . . especially in housing tetrofits. Not such a big deal. In the U.S. $1,000 per house would do wonders. $10,000 per house would improve that by much. Manufacture of renewable energy generation systems, not just for a few countries, but for the world, is a colossal opportunity. Yes indeed! CF, on the other hand, would cost less than nothing, and CF all by itself would only reduce economic activity, not increase it. If we end up consuming the same amount of energy with the same set of machines, we reduce the world economy by $2.8 trillion per year, and add nothing. That outcome seems unlikely to me. The money people save is likely to go somewhere else instead. - Jed
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
On Mar 15, 2006, at 10:37 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: With the right policies we can have have economic activity like never before - and all to the good side. Vehicle replacement with energy efficient vehicles is a huge economic opportunity. I disagree. This will only call for the construction of some production lines, which is not a big deal. The cars will be replaced as the old ones wear out, which means there will be no increase or decrease in economic activity. There is a good possibility of retrofits. Also, gas guzzling SUVs and trucks will probably end up in the junk yard much faster than before. I think the transition period to new vehicle types must necessarily result in increased economic activity. Additionally, entire new career types will develop. Being an auto mechanic or running a filling station will just not be the same! What you are saying is true in the long run from a world perspective. The problem in the transportation area is more along the lines of *where* the main interim activity will occur. My impression is that it will not be in the US unless significant changes in attitude occur. It is likely that building of entirely new vehicle classes, like inexpensive personal commuter vehicles, will eventually reduce overall economic activity. Similarly, reduced vehicle usage due to changes in commuting habits should reduce vehicle dollar sales volume. However, economic efficiency gains improve quality of life, even ignoring environmental quality issues. And maybe that was your original point - that we can reduce economic activity while simultaneously improving quality of life. Building a new energy infrastructure is a huge opportunity . . . This would be expensive! And worth it, we hope. . . . especially in housing tetrofits. Not such a big deal. In the U.S. $1,000 per house would do wonders. $10,000 per house would improve that by much. Here it depends on just what kinds of retrofits are being made. I am assuming here that these might include addition of solar energy gathering, general energy storage facilities, utility coordinating computers/communications, and vehicle energizing facilities. Manufacture of renewable energy generation systems, not just for a few countries, but for the world, is a colossal opportunity. Yes indeed! CF, on the other hand, would cost less than nothing, and CF all by itself would only reduce economic activity, not increase it. If we end up consuming the same amount of energy with the same set of machines, we reduce the world economy by $2.8 trillion per year, and add nothing. That outcome seems unlikely to me. The money people save is likely to go somewhere else instead. Renewable energy is achieved by the replacement of energy mining with energy device manufacturing. I think this can be achieved at comparable costs per BTU for petroleum, as shown in: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BigPicture.pdf and substantiated in: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/EnergyCosts.pdf. This means that trillions of dollars per year are moved from light labor activity (mining/exploration) to a labor intensive manufacturing activity. The ultimate product is the same, the value of 400 quads/year. However, the economic multiplier for labor intensive activities, like manufacturing, is higher. More peripheral support jobs are created, e.g. teachers, doctors, store clerks, etc. The quality of life for the masses is improved. This is offset by a reduction in income for the comparatively few who own the petroleum infrastructure. However, if clever, the petro-people are the very people who can benefit the most by having the wisdom to jump on the renewable energy bandwagon as soon as possible with their windfall profits. If not, they will ultimately go the way of the dinosaur. Horace Heffner
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
On Mar 15, 2006, at 11:01 AM, Philip Winestone wrote: In certain countries such as India and Africa, small, self- contained systems, such as for pumping irrigation water, or powering comfort fans, can work wonders. For countries such as the US and Canada, renewable power such as solar energy is quite inadequate. What is the basis for this position? Wind rose data for mountain top regions in northern latitudes like Canada and Alaska show enormous energy potential. The southern US has enormous solar generating potential, and Canada has much to offer in trade in the US/Canada energy grid. The principle technological problems are renewable energy storage and transmission. There are also the lessor problems of generating power during windmill feathering in high winds, and operating in arctic conditions, but these problems are solvable. There is good geothermal potential in the US and Canada as well as bio-fuel potential. In addition, renewable energy can be imported from efficient solar generating countries using silicon or nitrogen based energy transport systems. See supporting material and refs at http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/. Power sources such as small hydro, where to some extent the power output is consistent, is attractive, as is biomass to some extent. But in order to capitalize on biomass, there have to be some logistical structures in place. Yes, major infrastructure changes have to occur to convert to renewable energy. However, these infrastructure changes and the economic efficiencies occurring as a result of these changes should have a dramatic and positive effect on the world economy and the quality of life. Horace Heffner
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
Philip Winestone wrote: For countries such as the US and Canada, renewable power such as solar energy is quite inadequate. That's incorrect. The U.S. wind power in the top ~5 states is larger than the power from all of the oil produced in the Middle East. (That is, wind power from places where turbines are allowed, excluding national parks, bird migratory lanes, urban areas and so on.) Solar power in the southeast could also easily supply all U.S. energy needs. As I recall, advanced, large scale solar in the Mohave desert could probably supply the entire world with energy, but the cost would be prohibitive. There are areas in the U.S. without much renewable power, such as Georgia and Washington DC. (If we could harness stupidity, cupidity and hot air, Washington alone could supply the whole nation.) Power sources such as small hydro, where to some extent the power output is consistent, is attractive, as is biomass to some extent. Hydro is tapped out. Biomass is far too small to make a significant difference. Biomass is a form of solar energy which happens to be less than 0.1% efficient, which is ridiculous. - Jed
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
Sorry - but I've been there. I was an alternate energy engineer quite a few years ago, specializing in solar, both in North America and overseas in India, Pakistan and Thailand. Wind power is inconsistent (like I said). Solar power - if you put panels on every square metre of the US - may supply lots of energy. Prohibitive cost? Yup. We also have three levels of hot air in Canada: Federal, Provincial and Municipal. Lots of potential there. Small hydro? Location-specific, but as I said, consistent. Biomass? Lots of logging here in Canada, as well as crop waste; lots of potential. Some years ago the Tennessee Valley Authority had some excellent, quite ambitious plans for harnessing biomass. Like I said, they tackled the logistics and the rest fell into place. P. At 04:21 PM 3/15/2006 -0500, you wrote: Philip Winestone wrote: For countries such as the US and Canada, renewable power such as solar energy is quite inadequate. That's incorrect. The U.S. wind power in the top ~5 states is larger than the power from all of the oil produced in the Middle East. (That is, wind power from places where turbines are allowed, excluding national parks, bird migratory lanes, urban areas and so on.) Solar power in the southeast could also easily supply all U.S. energy needs. As I recall, advanced, large scale solar in the Mohave desert could probably supply the entire world with energy, but the cost would be prohibitive. There are areas in the U.S. without much renewable power, such as Georgia and Washington DC. (If we could harness stupidity, cupidity and hot air, Washington alone could supply the whole nation.) Power sources such as small hydro, where to some extent the power output is consistent, is attractive, as is biomass to some extent. Hydro is tapped out. Biomass is far too small to make a significant difference. Biomass is a form of solar energy which happens to be less than 0.1% efficient, which is ridiculous. - Jed
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
Philip Winestone wrote: Sorry - but I've been there. I was an alternate energy engineer quite a few years ago, specializing in solar . . . What kind of solar? PV or direct thermal? Direct, large scale thermal plants were built 20 years ago by Luz, and they take less land area than coal or nuclear plants do when you factor in the size of the mines. They take much less land than hydroelectricity does, when you factor in the land that is submerged by the lake behind the dam. They are more efficient than PV, and about 250 times more efficient than biomass. See Strirling Energy, Sempra Energy and others. They are building a 500 MW unit and a 900 MW unit. These units do not take much land. See: http://www.stirlingenergy.com/news/Solars%20Day%20in%20the%20Sun%20-%20WSJ%2011-17-05.pdf Stirling claims that a solar farm 100 miles square could supply all U.S. electricity. Others have made similar claims. There are plenty of places in the Southwest desert ares where you could hide an installation as large as this -- not that you would actually put it all in one location. See: http://www.stirlingenergy.com/faq.asp?Type=all Wind power is inconsistent (like I said). For many applications this does not matter. Solar power - if you put panels on every square metre of the US - may supply lots of energy. Panels -- meaning PV. This is the wrong approach in the U.S., with present day technology, although it is going great guns in Japan. Japan has different land use and weather parameters. Prohibitive cost? Yup. Stirling expects it will cost 10 cents per kWh in their first installations. Others estimate 6 cents. That's expensive but not prohibitive. The cost would fall to 2 cents if these things were developed on a large scale. (That is true of wind, as well.) PV electricity in Japan is now cheaper than centrally generated power, which is admittedly the world's most expensive. - Jed
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
Oh, incidentally, if I were to choose a way for people to become somewhat energy independent (ie - not hooked up to some grid and thus not totally dependent on giant energy purveyors) I would far rather put my energy into developing viable cold fusion applications, and not waste my time on the other stuff we've already discussed. Philip. At 04:21 PM 3/15/2006 -0500, you wrote: Philip Winestone wrote: For countries such as the US and Canada, renewable power such as solar energy is quite inadequate. That's incorrect. The U.S. wind power in the top ~5 states is larger than the power from all of the oil produced in the Middle East. (That is, wind power from places where turbines are allowed, excluding national parks, bird migratory lanes, urban areas and so on.) Solar power in the southeast could also easily supply all U.S. energy needs. As I recall, advanced, large scale solar in the Mohave desert could probably supply the entire world with energy, but the cost would be prohibitive. There are areas in the U.S. without much renewable power, such as Georgia and Washington DC. (If we could harness stupidity, cupidity and hot air, Washington alone could supply the whole nation.) Power sources such as small hydro, where to some extent the power output is consistent, is attractive, as is biomass to some extent. Hydro is tapped out. Biomass is far too small to make a significant difference. Biomass is a form of solar energy which happens to be less than 0.1% efficient, which is ridiculous. - Jed
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
Philip Winestone writes: Oh, incidentally, if I were to choose a way for people to become somewhat energy independent (ie - not hooked up to some grid and thus not totally dependent on giant energy purveyors) Honestly, I see no point to energy independence. Why does anyone care whether they are hooked to a grid or not? The power company charges a reasonable price. You cannot have wind power without a grid. I mean, I would prefer a world with no grid, because power lines are ugly and they take up space. But since we have a grid why does anyone want to get off of it? Of course CF would have countless advantages, and it would do away with the grid. - Jed
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
On Mar 15, 2006, at 6:36 PM, Philip Winestone wrote: ...I really can't be bothered arguing how many PV modules can dance on the head of a pin. Yes, all those facts can be so annoying. Horace Heffner
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
Thomas Malloy wrote to the lone wolf meteorologist Roy Spencer and was directed by the reply to his website of serious articles http://www.tcsdaily.com/Authors.aspx?id=267 Mr Spencer further poured scorn on the piece of popular journalism at http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0222-27.htm by saying I would say that is the most irresponsible piece of journalism I have ever read on climate issues - I say Mr Spencer himself is irresponsible and an (even more than an) idiot. From his serious articles it is all to easy to see that he is not stupid - he is far more dangerous than that - he is what I call anti-intelligent. Just like an anti-matter particle can seriously interfere with the life of a normal matter particle, so then do anti-intelligent people royally screw things up. Ordinary people make the mistake of giving equal weight to two opposing scientific views. They assume that the underlying values and beliefs and assumptions of both can be taken as read to be cool, unbiased and responsible and wise. This is very often not the case!! An anti-intelligent person uses their undoubted brain power and education to come up with ideas and beliefs that are pathological - that tend to hurt humanity and the ecosphere. They often seem more rational , more calm and collected and more sensible. Watch out! This is the intelligent position. Greenhouse gases ARE increasing in the atmosphere, Physics STATES that this will change the retention of energy in our atmosphere unless there is some exactly equal balancing effect which is highly unlikely, has not been mentioned, and it should not be gambled upon that there is. There are many feedback loops that can be identified (dozens, hundreds, thousands, millions depending on how you define the categories) some positive, some negative. Depending on which combination of loops proves to have the upper hand, the Planet will retain more energy from the sun causing ultimately disastrous global warming or will stay exactly the same or we may end up with an ice planet. Warming will almost certainly modify the feedback loops themselves. Once we are in a period of unknown climate instability NO-ONE knows or can genuinely predict which way things will go. Let me shout that again. NOBODY KNOWS WHICH WAY THINGS WILL GO - NOBODY AT ALL - the basic laws of the universe say NO-ONE KNOWS FOR CERTAIN. Anybody who disputes these statements is not just an idiot, they are anti-intelligent. There are very many scientists and environmentalists who believe in their theories so strongly that they believe they can predict what will happen, but climate science is all deduction and inference. It is not now, and never has been, an experimental science, so the hypotheses have never been any thing like fully tested by any experiment (e.g - let's halve the concentration of CO2 at the Poles and treble it at the Equator and see if what happens agrees with our predictions from our hypotheses and our computer models) and when one is dealing with a primary life support mechanism for most life on Earth, it is highly irresponsible to accidentally experiment with (more like monkey with) it, as we are currently doing. -- Mr Malloy seems to believe that Roy Spencer is anti the global warming hype and thereby appears to believe that this means he is saying there is no danger, and some of Mr Spencer's writings suggest this but from his own articles, I have selected a few paragraphs that are hopefully not taken out of context. From his serious articles From the first article, paragraph seven And in the policy area, it would be stupid to not do something now about reducing carbon emissions -- if it were that easy. But I believe that major technological advances are the only way humanity can substantially reduce carbon emissions in this century. And as readers of my previous articles here know, I have argued that only the wealthy countries can afford the RD to make these advances. So, my conclusion is, we should not shoot ourselves in the economic foot to gain reductions equivalent to only, say, 10% in emissions. While this is also similar to the Bush Administration's position, I have had no influence from them or anyone else the last 20 years to change what I believe on this subject. He basically admits that there IS a problem with increasing greenhouse gases and he is gambling that we will invent technology that will be sufficiently major to do the job in time. All of us here on Vortex are keen on new energy technology and the clever use of existing technology (c.f. Horace's monographs on financial incentives, reflective particles etc) but Mr Spencer ought to realise the enormous inertia
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
Nick Palmer wrote. Mr Malloy seems to believe that Roy Spencer is anti the global warming hype and thereby appears to believe that this means he is saying there is no danger, and some of Mr Spencer's writings suggest this but from his own articles, I have selected a few paragraphs that are hopefully not taken out of context. Snip excellent argument. I would say Mr Malloy should apply for one of the Entry Level jobs at Wal-Mart, a greeter.or when he gets too old for that, a speed bump. :-) Fred
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
Fred, the only thing I have against Thomas is that he tends to be one of the I heard a man say on the radio types - it's the men on the radio that I was a having a go against... Nick
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
I was only poking fun at Thomas, Nick. But for every 12 tons of Carbon in Fossil Fuels oxidized there are 44 tons of CO2 going into the atmosphere. Multiply that by billions of tons annually worldwide, and it's not hard to figure that terrestrial or marine biomass CO2 sequestering isn't keeping up with it. Fred [Original Message] From: Nick Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Vortex-L vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: 3/14/2006 7:02:28 AM Subject: Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change Fred, the only thing I have against Thomas is that he tends to be one of the I heard a man say on the radio types - it's the men on the radio that I was a having a go against... Nick
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
Nick, I see an important point in the text you quoted that I think you missed. So, my conclusion is, we should not shoot ourselves in the economic foot to gain reductions equivalent to only, say, 10% in emissions. We may be too late, or we may be close to too late. In either of those scenerios a 10% reduction will not save us, but merely cripple the global economies, and put the massive absolute solutions out of reach. We can't save civilization by dismantling it. This is what must happen: 1. The economy must be kept roaring. 2. This will free up resources that can be directed toward non CO2 producing energy solutions like various forms of cold fusion. 3. Leaders must direct appropriate research to be done with these resources. (this is what is still not happening) 4. Then, when practical solutions are identified, we will have sufficient wealth and prosperity to impliment them. This is the only way. Anything less than this brings us to global failure. Can it be done in time? I don't know, and neither does anybody else. If greenhouse gases are a problem that humans must fix, then this is the only way we can both fix it and save civilization. Jeff Fink P.S. This Kyoto stuff is a formula for disaster. We are past the point of no return on a takeoff runway. It is too late to apply the brakes and make a safe stop. It's throttle to the firewall. We either fly or die. - Original Message - From: Nick Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 7:10 AM Subject: Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change Thomas Malloy wrote to the lone wolf meteorologist Roy Spencer and was directed by the reply to his website of serious articles http://www.tcsdaily.com/Authors.aspx?id=267 Mr Spencer further poured scorn on the piece of popular journalism at http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0222-27.htm by saying I would say that is the most irresponsible piece of journalism I have ever read on climate issues -- --- I say Mr Spencer himself is irresponsible and an (even more than an) idiot. From his serious articles it is all to easy to see that he is not stupid - he is far more dangerous than that - he is what I call anti-intelligent. Just like an anti-matter particle can seriously interfere with the life of a normal matter particle, so then do anti-intelligent people royally screw things up. Ordinary people make the mistake of giving equal weight to two opposing scientific views. They assume that the underlying values and beliefs and assumptions of both can be taken as read to be cool, unbiased and responsible and wise. This is very often not the case!! An anti-intelligent person uses their undoubted brain power and education to come up with ideas and beliefs that are pathological - that tend to hurt humanity and the ecosphere. They often seem more rational , more calm and collected and more sensible. Watch out! This is the intelligent position. Greenhouse gases ARE increasing in the atmosphere, Physics STATES that this will change the retention of energy in our atmosphere unless there is some exactly equal balancing effect which is highly unlikely, has not been mentioned, and it should not be gambled upon that there is. There are many feedback loops that can be identified (dozens, hundreds, thousands, millions depending on how you define the categories) some positive, some negative. Depending on which combination of loops proves to have the upper hand, the Planet will retain more energy from the sun causing ultimately disastrous global warming or will stay exactly the same or we may end up with an ice planet. Warming will almost certainly modify the feedback loops themselves. Once we are in a period of unknown climate instability NO-ONE knows or can genuinely predict which way things will go. Let me shout that again. NOBODY KNOWS WHICH WAY THINGS WILL GO - NOBODY AT ALL - the basic laws of the universe say NO-ONE KNOWS FOR CERTAIN. Anybody who disputes these statements is not just an idiot, they are anti-intelligent. There are very many scientists and environmentalists who believe in their theories so strongly that they believe they can predict what will happen, but climate science is all deduction and inference. It is not now, and never has been, an experimental science, so the hypotheses have never been any thing like fully tested by any experiment (e.g - let's halve the concentration of CO2 at the Poles and treble it at the Equator and see if what happens agrees with our predictions from our hypotheses and our computer models) and when one is dealing with a primary life support mechanism for most life on Earth, it is highly irresponsible to accidentally experiment with (more like monkey with) it, as we are currently doing
RE: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
Revtek writes: This is what must happen: 1. The economy must be kept roaring. Dow index / Jan 2000 - 11,500 Jan 2006 - 10,780 aggregate US economic growth, -6% Roaring, Rev? How about whimpering like a pimpslapped bitch. No point in addressing the rest. Please reconnect to reality and try again. Operators are standing by. K.
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
On Mar 14, 2006, at 7:49 AM, Keith Nagel wrote: Revtek writes: This is what must happen: 1. The economy must be kept roaring. Dow index / Jan 2000 - 11,500 Jan 2006 - 10,780 aggregate US economic growth, -6% Roaring, Rev? How about whimpering like a pimpslapped bitch. Yes, and considering inflation, it is of course worse. A 1999 dollar was worth 876.79 in 2005. See: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi The market actually dropped from 11,500 to roughly 9452, all in 1999 dollars, a real loss of about 18 percent. The cost of energy is a real economy killer. A concentrated effort on renewable energy could do for the economy what WWII or the space program did for the economy, and more. The economic benefits would be permanent. Winning the war and getting to the moon had only spinoff economic benefits. Solving the energy problem has *direct* economic benefits. Most people aren't aware of the costs they will pay for bad government choices, nor the benefits that can be obtained from the right government choices. The problem is renewable energy upsets the status quo, so who is there to lobby for and publicise the right choices? Horace Heffner
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
Whether or not the global economy is good, it must become good to accomplish all that must be done. All of our CO2 producing machines must be replaced with non CO2 producing machines, and this can only be done by revving up our CO2 technology to the max to produce the replacements! We are running out of runway. Who's for cutting the throttle and hitting the brakes? Are we going to fly or end up splattered in a ditch? Jeff - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 1:23 PM Subject: Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change On Mar 14, 2006, at 7:49 AM, Keith Nagel wrote: Revtek writes: This is what must happen: 1. The economy must be kept roaring. Dow index / Jan 2000 - 11,500 Jan 2006 - 10,780 aggregate US economic growth, -6% Roaring, Rev? How about whimpering like a pimpslapped bitch. Yes, and considering inflation, it is of course worse. A 1999 dollar was worth 876.79 in 2005. See: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi The market actually dropped from 11,500 to roughly 9452, all in 1999 dollars, a real loss of about 18 percent. The cost of energy is a real economy killer. A concentrated effort on renewable energy could do for the economy what WWII or the space program did for the economy, and more. The economic benefits would be permanent. Winning the war and getting to the moon had only spinoff economic benefits. Solving the energy problem has *direct* economic benefits. Most people aren't aware of the costs they will pay for bad government choices, nor the benefits that can be obtained from the right government choices. The problem is renewable energy upsets the status quo, so who is there to lobby for and publicise the right choices? Horace Heffner
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
revtec wrote: Whether or not the global economy is good, it must become good to accomplish all that must be done. You have that backward. If we begin to do all that must be done, this will improve the economy and create jobs. Good, purposeful, rewarding jobs. Also we will save tons of money after the projects are complete. Plus we will bankrupt our worst enemies, who are -- at this moment -- frantically trying to use oil wealth to buy nuclear weapons on the black market, to kill millions of us. And they will do it if they can -- don't kid yourself about that. Of course cold fusion will accomplish all of this at virtually no cost, but if we must use conventional technology, the sooner we get on with it, the better. We are running out of runway. Who's for cutting the throttle and hitting the brakes? I am! Emphatically. I understand little about economics, but I do not favor breakneck expansion of industrial output despite the consequences; or Americans eating ever-increasing amounts of food; or SUVs the size of Mack Trucks. (I have been in all-you-can-eat restaurants along I-85 lately, and I have noticed how obese Americans eat. These people shovel down 2 to 3 times more than I eat in a whole day! I would throw up if I ate that much!) As I said in chapter 21 of my book, I have nothing against materialism and I would never say that poor people who want automobiles and nice houses should not have them, but on the other hand mindless consumption satisfies no one -- and hurts many people and other species. We are running out of runway because we have paved over an obscene amount of land, instead of using telecommuting. We are stressed out because we work too hard. People in the first world should chill out, and spend more time sitting on the lawn, drinking wine and listening to Mozart. And it would help if the top 0.5% of the U.S. population would stop hogging half the wealth. There are no material shortages or serious limits. Our only problems are waste, greed and stupidity. - Jed
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
On Mar 14, 2006, at 2:11 PM, revtec wrote: We are running out of runway. Who's for cutting the throttle and hitting the brakes? You must be kidding. We are spending millions on carbon industry subsidies. That is like carrying dead weight instead of fuel. In addition, our trade deficit is like a giant economic hemorrhage. I think the trick may be to get the carbon industry itself motivated to make the switch. That's where the big windfall bucks are right now. The question is whether the industry has leaders with enough foresight to invest the windfall heavily in renewables. Horace Heffner
Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
Vortexians; I've been corresponding with the meteorologist Roy Spencer. His ecoenquirer.com website is satire. I asked him for a URL of his serious writing on the subject, and he replied [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thomas: If you want my serious writings on the subject, I have a lot of short climate articles at: http://www.tcsdaily.com/Authors.aspx?id=267 I read his article on the Canadian conference. Then I sent him the following Just in time, someone posted this on Vortex-L http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0222-27.htm he replied; Thanks for the article...I would say that is the most irresponsible piece of journalism I have ever read on climate issues. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
