FPGA Central

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/



If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start
dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global
Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and
quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at
the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU)
and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet.
(Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72
documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have
preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this
scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged
emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists
pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly
illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance
to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in
their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of
John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the
Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent
of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the
way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed
evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged
emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed
the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess
up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious
practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real
temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd
from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the
moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in
the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more
warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is
inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family
crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have
his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted
to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm
Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen
NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available
nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather
than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/
regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the
putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean
reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications
discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer
review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in
which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank,
whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not
publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a
solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I
think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate
peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in
the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers
in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or
request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the
editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing
more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome
editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The
responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a
few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words
with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to
discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story
up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie”
– Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data
in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had
risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the
last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in
contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international
scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers
it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU,
established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body
which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is
one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by
the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin
of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course.
In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and
grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media.
And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist
activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane
Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding
because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you
take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant
to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher
taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s
Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is
now also the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood
(and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are
too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in
terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s
credibility which is never likely to recover.

HardySpicer wrote:
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/

Now we know that someone is lying. How do we know who?

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

HardySpicer wrote:

> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/
>
>
>
> If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start
> dumping them NOW.

Orly?

There are other reasons to look at alternative engery sources, like:

a) Energy indepenence from the middle east.
b) Possibility of Peak Oil.
c) Alternative energy sources may be less harmful to the environment
(compare solar/wind/geothermal to say Canadian oil shale strip mining).

> When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72
> documents

You've read these files and thats the conclusion you've come to?

Erik
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/

On Nov 21, 3:28*pm, Erik de Castro Lopo <er...@mega-nerd.com> wrote:
> HardySpicer wrote:
> >http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...7393/climatega...
>
> > If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start
> > dumping them NOW.
>
> Orly?
>
> There are other reasons to look at alternative engery sources, *like:
>
> * a) Energy indepenence from the middle east.
> * b) Possibility of Peak Oil.
> * c) Alternative energy sources may be less harmful to the environment
> * * *(compare solar/wind/geothermal to say Canadian oil shale stripmining).


I agree but it doesn't help matters here. Their scaremongering tactics
have backfired.

>HardySpicer wrote:
>
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/
>
>Now we know that someone is lying. How do we know who?
>
>Jerry

(Apologies if parts of this appear repeated; dsprelated seems to hav
become temporarily inaccessible right when I made an initial post over a
hour ago, and I still don't see it.)

It took 6-7 minutes to get the torrent. Why don't you go download it an
decide for yourself? The conclusions seem a bit sensationalized (stoc
advice), but the emails speak for themselves...if you believe they'r
legit. Here's what my take was prior to seeing this, FWIW.



The whole climate change thing has long stunk. The biggest problem is th
general attitude (both among people with scientific interest and thos
without) towards people with alternative theories. Note I didn't sa
towards the theories themselves (although that's the case, too), bu
rather, towards the people. All theories should be tested, and none can b
proven, as you probably know. The best a theorist can hope for is that th
evidence to date would be consistent with the theory; the history o
inadequacies of models and fabrication of results (most infamously, th
hockey stick of Mann, et al, which has long been known to intentionall
underemphasize the medieval warm period and little ice age by means of ba
statistical methods) doesn't even offer that. There are a whole host o
ulterior motives one can postulate for people to take one position or th
other, some of which are more believable than others (these are no
mutually exclusive):

*) right or not, some people honestly believe the evidence points
particular way
*) for most people in government who support policies on the basis o
believing it, it's about control of peoples' lives: light bulbs, cars
thermostats, etc. I can't imagine wanting that kind of control, but som
do.
*) it's easier to get funding for an alarmist study than a study tha
yields the opposite result, and words can always be tailored to emphasiz
or deemphasize results
*) some people "behind the scenes" have their views misrepresented i
publications (a trademark move of the IPCC, along with representin
non-scientists as scientists)
*) most scientists who study climate are not directly involved in th
MODELING, and have little knowledge about it
*) some companies have a vested interest one way or the other, and ma
have people willing to deceive, or perhaps just market to people who wan
it one way. This point, like the first, can be seen in both directions.


The words "climate change", as opposed to "global warming", have th
interesting interpretation of being untestable: no one in their right min
should expect the climate to stay the same, whether man exists or not.
should also point out that one of the key scientific debates (and most o
the typical banter you hear is not) is about positive versus negativ
feedback, where the "input" to the model is primarily man-made CO2
something that, in itself, is not enough to significantly affect climate.
The feedback mechanism proposed, interestingly enough by both sides, i
water vapor, a more substantial greenhouse gas. Indeed, historical record
show CO2 levels *lag* temperature (varying amounts, but 800 years or s
rings a bell), but it's possible to zoom the plots out enough so you can'
tell that, as Gore does.

If you asked most skeptics 5-10 years ago if the large-scale warming wa
occurring, the answer would be "yes, but we can't see any significan
evidence that man is the cause". Now that we've been cooling for nearl
that long on a large scale (perhaps even as long ago as 1998), th
believers want to come up with more complicated theories to explain i
away.

In other words, keep changing the model so it continues to be a contender
That's all well and good, but making policy on theory with a poo
prediction track record is not good. It's sad comment on education on th
scientific method that the labels "doubter" or "skeptic" can be take
pejoratively.

HardySpicer wrote:
> On Nov 21, 3:28 pm, Erik de Castro Lopo <er...@mega-nerd.com> wrote:
>> HardySpicer wrote:
>>> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...7393/climatega...
>>> If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start
>>> dumping them NOW.
>> Orly?
>>
>> There are other reasons to look at alternative engery sources, like:
>>
>> a) Energy indepenence from the middle east.
>> b) Possibility of Peak Oil.
>> c) Alternative energy sources may be less harmful to the environment
>> (compare solar/wind/geothermal to say Canadian oil shale strip mining).
>
>
> I agree but it doesn't help matters here. Their scaremongering tactics
> have backfired.

What confirms the emails? Have any of the supposed authors acknowledged
them? Where are the headers?

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Nov 20, 9:35*pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree but it doesn't help matters here. Their scaremongering tactics
> have backfired.

I have known with every bone in my body that if these people truly
believed what they say about global warming that they all would be
screaming at the toop of their lungs for nuclear energy. It is the
only viable energy source that could truly reduce green house gas.
And yet, never a peep from people like Al Gore about the need to
convert to nuclear - NOW.

In my mind , the complete ignoring of the only viable solution to the
problem they keep proclaiming makes them all frauds. The whole global
warming thing is a fraud.

Michael Plante <michael.plante@gmail.com> wrote:
(snip)

(snip)
> The words "climate change", as opposed to "global warming", have the
> interesting interpretation of being untestable: no one in their right mind
> should expect the climate to stay the same, whether man exists or not. I
> should also point out that one of the key scientific debates (and most of
> the typical banter you hear is not) is about positive versus negative
> feedback, where the "input" to the model is primarily man-made CO2,
> something that, in itself, is not enough to significantly affect climate.

Why do you say that? Have you considered how much CO2 we put
into the atmosphere every day, where it goes, and how fast?

If not, what basis do you have for your statement?

> The feedback mechanism proposed, interestingly enough by both sides, is
> water vapor, a more substantial greenhouse gas. Indeed, historical records
> show CO2 levels *lag* temperature (varying amounts, but 800 years or so
> rings a bell), but it's possible to zoom the plots out enough so you can't
> tell that, as Gore does.

-- glen

brent <bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> writes:

> On Nov 20, 9:35Â*pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree but it doesn't help matters here. Their scaremongering tactics
>> have backfired.
>
> I have known with every bone in my body that if these people truly
> believed what they say about global warming that they all would be
> screaming at the toop of their lungs for nuclear energy. It is the
> only viable energy source that could truly reduce green house gas.
> And yet, never a peep from people like Al Gore about the need to
> convert to nuclear - NOW.
>
> In my mind , the complete ignoring of the only viable solution to the
> problem they keep proclaiming makes them all frauds. The whole global
> warming thing is a fraud.

Nuclear is not a long-term viable solution. We still haven't come
anywhere close to a good long-term solution for nuclear waste.

What we SHOULD be doing (and should HAVE been doing for 40 years) is
channeling more funding into fusion (say, 1/10th the amount we've fed
wars in the last 40 years?). Once we crack that nut, no one will ever
worry about energy again.
--
Randy Yates % "The dreamer, the unwoken fool -
Digital Signal Labs % in dreams, no pain will kiss the brow..."
mailto://yates@ieee.org %
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com % 'Eldorado Overture', *Eldorado*, ELO

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:34:38 -0800, brent wrote:
>for nuclear energy. It is the only
> viable energy source that could truly reduce green house gas. And yet,
> never a peep from people like Al Gore about the need to convert to
> nuclear - NOW.
>
> In my mind , the complete ignoring of the only viable solution to the
> problem they keep proclaiming makes them all frauds. The whole global
> warming thing is a fraud.

I used to think that nuclear was a reasonable answer (apart from the
still-not-solved problem of where to put the waste, but I think that's
probably solvable.) But last week I read an article in (I think) IEEE
Spectrum that said that the world was *currently* consuming about 30%
more uranium than is being mined, per annum (using up stockpiles), and
that even were production to be increased to meet current and extended
demand, there was about forty years' supply left in the ground.

I can't find that article at the moment, so can't quote the reference,
but it wasn't hard to find similar on the internet with five minutes'
googling.

With nuclear (fission) difficult and limited, fusion seemingly not going
to happen and oil on (or near) the downward slope, I reckon that
investments in "alternative" sources of energy are probably not that bad
an idea...

Cheers,

--
Andrew

On 21 Nov, 04:42, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> Michael Plante <michael.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> (snip)
>
> > The words "climate change", as opposed to "global warming", have the
> > interesting interpretation of being untestable: *no one in their right mind
> > should expect the climate to stay the same, whether man exists or not. *I
> > should also point out that one of the key scientific debates (and most of
> > the typical banter you hear is not) is about positive versus negative
> > feedback, where the "input" to the model is primarily man-made CO2,
> > something that, in itself, is not enough to significantly affect climate.
>
> Why do you say that? *Have you considered how much CO2 we put
> into the atmosphere every day, where it goes, and how fast?

One warning sign that the CO2 argument might not hold, eh,
water, is that people start comparing effects of emissions
of methane etc from livestock with the effects of emitted
CO2 from various human activites. The numbers of large
mammals is significantly smaller these days than just a
mere century ago, ref Buffalo Bill and his ndriving the
Amercian bison to the verge of extinction. Similar decimations
of large mammals have occured more or less all over the world,
particularly in Africa.

If it is true that livestock accounts for several tens of
percent of green house gasses, these oce very large but
presently extinct sources that continuosly emitted large
amounts of methane, will have to be accounted for in the
historical gas emission data.

> If not, what basis do you have for your statement?

The CO2 argument has another two main flaws:

1) Everybody focus solely on CO2 and ignore everything else
that is spewed into the atmostphere, be it caused by
Homo Sapiens or other phenomena. There is plenty of
volcanic activity across the world, particularly around
the Pacific, where anecdotal (as opposed to historical)
data is scarce. People remember mt St Helens because they
saw it. Similar events in, say, Sakhalin and Kamtsjatka,
go unnoticed because no one are there to see.

2) The existence of a correlation between global temperature
and human CO2 emissions does not mean there is a cause-effect
relation between the two. Few if any climate models include
variability of the driving force, the sun, as contributing /
driving factor for the changes in climate. Until the causes
and effect relations between solar variability and terrestial
climate are fully understood, any statements regarding causes
and effects of climate changes are nothing more than speculation
and myth.

Rune

Randy Yates wrote:
> brent <bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> writes:
>
>> On Nov 20, 9:35 pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree but it doesn't help matters here. Their scaremongering tactics
>>> have backfired.
>> I have known with every bone in my body that if these people truly
>> believed what they say about global warming that they all would be
>> screaming at the toop of their lungs for nuclear energy. It is the
>> only viable energy source that could truly reduce green house gas.
>> And yet, never a peep from people like Al Gore about the need to
>> convert to nuclear - NOW.
>>
>> In my mind , the complete ignoring of the only viable solution to the
>> problem they keep proclaiming makes them all frauds. The whole global
>> warming thing is a fraud.
>
> Nuclear is not a long-term viable solution. We still haven't come
> anywhere close to a good long-term solution for nuclear waste.
>

It is a matter of 1) symbolism 2) supplier "diversity" and
3) bootstrapping - once we have more nuclear waste to deal with,
we'll get better at it.

I think what brent is saying is more in line with "we
may well have a problem technology. Let's find a tech solution
to it rather than build "awareness" and turning the whole
thing into a Kum-Bay_Yah fest." which is highly unlikely
to actually *solve the problem*.

We trade fossil fuels for the privilege of there being so many of
us. I kinda like us. I am a species-ist.

> What we SHOULD be doing (and should HAVE been doing for 40 years) is
> channeling more funding into fusion (say, 1/10th the amount we've fed
> wars in the last 40 years?). Once we crack that nut, no one will ever
> worry about energy again.

So we are to replace a technology which creates uncomfortably high
energy densities with a technology with orders of magnitude
more energy density? Even if we could do it?

--
Les Cargill

On Nov 20, 10:54*pm, Randy Yates <ya...@ieee.org> wrote:
> brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> writes:
> > On Nov 20, 9:35*pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I agree but it doesn't help matters here. Their scaremongering tactics
> >> have backfired.
>
> > I have known with every bone in my body that if these people truly
> > believed what they say about global warming that they all would be
> > screaming at the toop of their lungs for nuclear energy. *It is the
> > only viable energy source that could truly reduce green house gas.
> > And yet, never a peep from people like Al Gore about the need to
> > convert to nuclear - NOW.
>
> > In my mind , the complete ignoring of the only viable solution to the
> > problem they keep proclaiming makes them all frauds. *The whole global
> > warming thing is a fraud.
>
> Nuclear is not a long-term viable solution. We still haven't come
> anywhere close to a good long-term solution for nuclear waste.
>
> What we SHOULD be doing (and should HAVE been doing for 40 years) is
> channeling more funding into fusion (say, 1/10th the amount we've fed
> wars in the last 40 years?). Once we crack that nut, no one will ever
> worry about energy again.
> --
> Randy Yates * * * * * * * * * * *% "The dreamer, the unwoken fool -
> Digital Signal Labs * * * * * * *% *in dreams, no pain will kiss the brow..."
> mailto://ya...@ieee.org * * * * *% *http://www.digitalsignallabs.com% 'Eldorado Overture', *Eldorado*, ELO

Nuclear may not be a long term viable solution. However, Solar,
ethanol, and wind are no solution - either short term or long term.
So, if the planet is going to self destruct if something drastic is
not done - use the best stop gap method - nuclear.
(I am not really advocating this myself - but it is the most logical
conclusion for a person who thinks we are truly on the brink to come
to)

And yet, not a peep about nuclear from any of the global warming
folks. .. Not a peep.

On 11/20/2009 8:02 PM, Jerry Avins wrote:
> HardySpicer wrote:
>> On Nov 21, 3:28 pm, Erik de Castro Lopo <er...@mega-nerd.com> wrote:
>>> HardySpicer wrote:
>>>> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...7393/climatega...
>>>>
>>>> If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start
>>>> dumping them NOW.
>>> Orly?
>>>
>>> There are other reasons to look at alternative engery sources, like:
>>>
>>> a) Energy indepenence from the middle east.
>>> b) Possibility of Peak Oil.
>>> c) Alternative energy sources may be less harmful to the environment
>>> (compare solar/wind/geothermal to say Canadian oil shale strip mining).
>>
>>
>> I agree but it doesn't help matters here. Their scaremongering tactics
>> have backfired.
>
> What confirms the emails? Have any of the supposed authors acknowledged
> them? Where are the headers?
>
> Jerry

The originating organization has evidently confirmed that they're
legitimate:

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_...a-is-real.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm

--
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.abineau.com

On Nov 21, 4:54*pm, Randy Yates <ya...@ieee.org> wrote:
> brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> writes:
> > On Nov 20, 9:35*pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I agree but it doesn't help matters here. Their scaremongering tactics
> >> have backfired.
>
> > I have known with every bone in my body that if these people truly
> > believed what they say about global warming that they all would be
> > screaming at the toop of their lungs for nuclear energy. *It is the
> > only viable energy source that could truly reduce green house gas.
> > And yet, never a peep from people like Al Gore about the need to
> > convert to nuclear - NOW.
>
> > In my mind , the complete ignoring of the only viable solution to the
> > problem they keep proclaiming makes them all frauds. *The whole global
> > warming thing is a fraud.
>
> Nuclear is not a long-term viable solution. We still haven't come
> anywhere close to a good long-term solution for nuclear waste.
>
> What we SHOULD be doing (and should HAVE been doing for 40 years) is
> channeling more funding into fusion (say, 1/10th the amount we've fed
> wars in the last 40 years?). Once we crack that nut, no one will ever
> worry about energy again.
> --
> Randy Yates * * * * * * * * * * *% "The dreamer, the unwoken fool -
> Digital Signal Labs * * * * * * *% *in dreams, no pain will kiss the brow..."
> mailto://ya...@ieee.org * * * * *% *http://www.digitalsignallabs.com% 'Eldorado Overture', *Eldorado*, ELO

Fusion has its problems too

http://www.wise-paris.org/index.html...rame/band.html

Hardy

>Michael Plante <michael.plante@gmail.com> wrote:
>(snip)
>
>(snip)
>> The words "climate change", as opposed to "global warming", have the
>> interesting interpretation of being untestable: no one in their righ
mind
>> should expect the climate to stay the same, whether man exists or not.
I
>> should also point out that one of the key scientific debates (and mos
of
>> the typical banter you hear is not) is about positive versus negative
>> feedback, where the "input" to the model is primarily man-made CO2,
>> something that, in itself, is not enough to significantly affec
climate.
>
>Why do you say that? Have you considered how much CO2 we put
>into the atmosphere every day, where it goes, and how fast?

Because CO2 levels have been considerably higher in the distant past, an
over that "region of operation", CO2 levels still lagged temperature. T
answer your other question, one number I've seen is 10ppm every 5 years
with levels in the last decade at about 380ppm. The current level may b
about 40% over pre-industrial levels. It's still a trace gas. That said
my statement was not made solely on that basis.


>If not, what basis do you have for your statement?

Again, those who promote global warming state that CO2 leads to increase
water vapor, not that CO2 in itself changes temperatures much.

With no feedback (which no one claims), positive or negative, doubling CO
levels may increase temperatures by about 1 deg F, theoretically. Th
single preceding sentence is fairly neutral. What is controversial (i
actual scientific discussion) is the sign of feedback.

Those who claim positive feedback would predict 4-10 deg F by the end o
this century, although the models vary a lot.

On Nov 21, 4:02*pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> HardySpicer wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 3:28 pm, Erik de Castro Lopo <er...@mega-nerd.com> wrote:
> >> HardySpicer wrote:
> >>>http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...7393/climatega....
> >>> If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start
> >>> dumping them NOW.
> >> Orly?
>
> >> There are other reasons to look at alternative engery sources, *like:
>
> >> * a) Energy indepenence from the middle east.
> >> * b) Possibility of Peak Oil.
> >> * c) Alternative energy sources may be less harmful to the environment
> >> * * *(compare solar/wind/geothermal to say Canadian oil shale strip mining).
>
> > I agree but it doesn't help matters here. Their scaremongering tactics
> > have backfired.
>
> What confirms the emails? Have any of the supposed authors acknowledged
> them? Where are the headers?
>
> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Here Jerry are the files I found

http://rapidshare.com/files/310019010/FOI2009.zip

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

Which is nice.

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

Which is just about to ignite.

--
Mikolaj

Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> On 11/20/2009 8:02 PM, Jerry Avins wrote:
>> HardySpicer wrote:
>>> On Nov 21, 3:28 pm, Erik de Castro Lopo <er...@mega-nerd.com> wrote:
>>>> HardySpicer wrote:
>>>>> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...7393/climatega...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start
>>>>> dumping them NOW.
>>>> Orly?
>>>>
>>>> There are other reasons to look at alternative engery sources, like:
>>>>
>>>> a) Energy indepenence from the middle east.
>>>> b) Possibility of Peak Oil.
>>>> c) Alternative energy sources may be less harmful to the environment
>>>> (compare solar/wind/geothermal to say Canadian oil shale strip mining).
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree but it doesn't help matters here. Their scaremongering tactics
>>> have backfired.
>>
>> What confirms the emails? Have any of the supposed authors acknowledged
>> them? Where are the headers?
>>
>> Jerry
>
> The originating organization has evidently confirmed that they're
> legitimate:
>
> http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_...a-is-real.html
>
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm

That is solid. Now I need to read what was actually said.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

HardySpicer wrote:
> On Nov 21, 4:02 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> HardySpicer wrote:
>>> On Nov 21, 3:28 pm, Erik de Castro Lopo <er...@mega-nerd.com> wrote:
>>>> HardySpicer wrote:
>>>>> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...7393/climatega...
>>>>> If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start
>>>>> dumping them NOW.
>>>> Orly?
>>>> There are other reasons to look at alternative engery sources, like:
>>>> a) Energy indepenence from the middle east.
>>>> b) Possibility of Peak Oil.
>>>> c) Alternative energy sources may be less harmful to the environment
>>>> (compare solar/wind/geothermal to say Canadian oil shale strip mining).
>>> I agree but it doesn't help matters here. Their scaremongering tactics
>>> have backfired.
>> What confirms the emails? Have any of the supposed authors acknowledged
>> them? Where are the headers?
>>
>> Jerry
>> --
>> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
> Here Jerry are the files I found
>
> http://rapidshare.com/files/310019010/FOI2009.zip

No free download slots available now. I'll try later.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

HardySpicer <gyansorova@gmail.com> writes:

> Fusion has its problems too
>
> http://www.wise-paris.org/index.html...rame/band.html

Thanks for the reference. I don't remember seeing this information.
--
Randy Yates % "Bird, on the wing,
Digital Signal Labs % goes floating by
mailto://yates@ieee.org % but there's a teardrop in his eye..."
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com % 'One Summer Dream', *Face The Music*, ELO

Randy Yates wrote:

> Nuclear is not a long-term viable solution.

More looks like nuclear is the only viable solution.

> We still haven't come
> anywhere close to a good long-term solution for nuclear waste.

You'd better get used to it.

> What we SHOULD be doing (and should HAVE been doing for 40 years) is
> channeling more funding into fusion (say, 1/10th the amount we've fed
> wars in the last 40 years?). Once we crack that nut, no one will ever
> worry about energy again.

Isn't 60 years of research enough to recognize and acknowledge that
fusion does not work?


Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam@nowhere.com> writes:

> Randy Yates wrote:
>
>> Nuclear is not a long-term viable solution.
>
> More looks like nuclear is the only viable solution.

Viable? No. Available? Perhaps.

>> We still haven't come
>> anywhere close to a good long-term solution for nuclear waste.
>
> You'd better get used to it.

Or else?

>> What we SHOULD be doing (and should HAVE been doing for 40 years) is
>> channeling more funding into fusion (say, 1/10th the amount we've fed
>> wars in the last 40 years?). Once we crack that nut, no one will ever
>> worry about energy again.
>
> Isn't 60 years of research enough to recognize and acknowledge that
> fusion does not work?

You mean ~$200M / year spread among several universities was supposed to
be enough to really accomplish something?
--
Randy Yates % "Though you ride on the wheels of tomorrow,
Digital Signal Labs % you still wander the fields of your
mailto://yates@ieee.org % sorrow."
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO

Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>
>
> Randy Yates wrote:
>
>> Nuclear is not a long-term viable solution.
>
> More looks like nuclear is the only viable solution.
>
>> We still haven't come
>> anywhere close to a good long-term solution for nuclear waste.
>
> You'd better get used to it.

What became of the new fuel cycle that creates only about a tenth of the
waste?

>> What we SHOULD be doing (and should HAVE been doing for 40 years) is
>> channeling more funding into fusion (say, 1/10th the amount we've fed
>> wars in the last 40 years?). Once we crack that nut, no one will ever
>> worry about energy again.
>
> Isn't 60 years of research enough to recognize and acknowledge that
> fusion does not work?

No. Fusion has been, is now, and will continue to be 20 years in the
future. :-)


--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:

>
>
> Randy Yates wrote:
>
> > Nuclear is not a long-term viable solution.
>
> More looks like nuclear is the only viable solution.

I recently saw claims that geothermal energy resources in Australia
are sufficient to provide something well over 1000 times Australia's
current energy needs.

Iceland currently generates about 25% of its energy needs from
geothermal, so it seems that this is a proven technology.

Erik
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/