Printable View
10 minutes to put the whole debate in perspective.
I normally detest cheap youtube videos. But I may transcribe this at some point, because it makes the best arguments about the whole debate itself.
Whether or not you believe global warming is real, you should still watch this, because this guy has it nailed.
I am all about risk management.
Well RG, I watched up to the point of the "action" "inaction"
on the white board.
I want to know where all the cat five hurricanes are that they
predicted?
I also want to know, how come the sun cant cause things to
heat up here on Earth?
I also want to know how come it takes three or four or five
computers to track the weather daily, but the doomsayers
can use one computer program to tell us that people are
causing the earth to heat up. How come?
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrayzebra
someone is faithful ditto head. geez ray hush's show has been over 5 minutes and you are already repeating his stuff?
Ahhhh, you listened, didn't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
But you are wrong, it is not his stuff. I have often thought
why some our most wonderful scientist, like RNR, and others
think that a damn computer model of Earth warming is
so much better than the others than takes about humpteen
programs to figure out what the weather will be like
the next few days. Like Steve on channel 12. Of
course here on the SpursTalk we got Manny. Maybe he
can answer that question.
Irrelevant. Either we cover our risk or we don't. It is that simple. It doesn't matter which side of the argument you are on, one should still mitigate the risk, and do something about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by xrayzebra
Like the guy in the video said, you can't always avoid car accidents, but you can avoid the financial disaster by buying insurance.
Sure you can toodle along without insurance, and quite possibly never need it, but is it responsible to do so?
RRG, some are saying we will be in a cooling period inQuote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
less than a decade. Do we cover that risk factor also. How
bout we let old Mother Nature take it's course and realize
mankind is just that mankind. We can change little and
only on a temporary basis.
That isn't the way it works, and this is alluded to in the video when the guy talks about light switches.Quote:
Originally Posted by xrayzebra
As for cooling, one should use the same logic that structures the matrix that the guy gives.
One has to cover for worst case scenarios that are somewhat likely. The thing about cooling is that there is little evidence to support it that I am aware of at the moment. I am sure you or Cobra can find a link, but I simply defer to the general scientific consensus on this for now.
Agreed when they are tempered with probability too.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Now riddle me this. If the world is so concerned with greenhouse gasses, then why aren't all nations treated equally under Kyoto?
I have seen enough evidence to convince me we (the USA) cannot make a dent in global warming with our current regulations. However, SE Asia is not only expelling more greenhouse gasses than us, they don't use current technology for pollution control. If you want me to believe the world leaders believe in man made global warming, then apply the rules equally. The way they go about it, I only see it as elitists trying to bring down the economic powers.
As for the risks? Again, the only evidence I have seen that man has caused any global warming it the black carbon from Asia melting the polar ice. Everything else is clearly disputable through reputable science.
Get Asia in line, then we can talk.
Where is this 'evidence' that China and SE Asia are propelling more greenhouses gasses into the air than the U.S?
It's already old news and I listed a source in a different posting somewhere. I'm not going to look for it again. China alone exceeded us by 8% in CO2 I think in 2006. They have been building coal powered plants like crazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan
If you are all about risk management then think about this for a second...the GW debate can be wrapped up in to choices...Quote:
I am all about risk management.
1. Either GW supporters are right and working to reduce GW gasses is a worthy cause - therefore spending money to regulate industry or raising taxes to reduce GW gases are a worthy cause because the alternative is war, famine, and lots of death....
or
2. the GW supporters are wrong and spending tax money and regulating industry are a big waste of money and we all live happily ever after....
so, your risk-management choices are 1) spend money that you don't necessarily have to spend 2) or war, famine, and death........
Thing is, with CO2, it may contribute as much as 36% of the greenhouse effect, and that is the worse case of a controversial number. It is more likely about 12%. It is already blocking in the high nineties of what it is capable of blocking by spectra. I'm not sure what that amount is, but let's assume 98%. The greenhouse effect is approximately 32 C. 36% of that is 11.52 C. Doubling the CO2 would then trap 98% of the remaining 2%, or another 0.226 C maximum, worse case scenario. This would be changing the CO2 from about 370 ppm to 740 ppm. Only a 0.226 C theoretical maximum change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan
More realistic, say 18% for the CO2 contribution make the CO2 effect half of the maximum worse case scenario.
Take the sun now. Scientist have shown a pretty good change from 1900 in average solar radiation to today. I think amount 1.6%, but I'm not sure by just looking at the graph. It's about 2.5% from 1700 to today. There is an almost linear relation between the solar intensity and the earths average temperature. The mildest case we can make for the sun would be to say that the earth would be at maybe 200 K (K = Kelvin, which has the same slope as Celsius. 0 C = 273.15 K) with no solar radiation. We currently enjoy an average of about 288 K. Therefore, a 1.6% change in solar radiation is a 1.41 C change. A 2.5% change would be 2.2 C change in temperature. 100 K with no solar radiation is more likely I think. Therefore, a 1.6% change in solar radiation would be a 3.008 C change. A 2.5% change would be 4.7 C change in temperature. These 1.6% and 2.5% are based on C14 proxies as these ratios change proportional to solar radiation.
The sun has far more effect on our temperature than greenhouse gasses, and we have no way or controlling it.
Now before you ask why we don't see the dramatic 3 degree change from 1700 to now, the oceans carry and store most the heat changes. The lag time is at least 800 years I think.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...unspot.svg.png
Note that the Carbon 14 readings lag by 60 years. It takes that long for them to settle from the upper atmosphere, which also means it is a 60 year smoothing for the graph.
probability is probability.
He is using the same logic that some people used to prove the existence of God in the 13th Century b/c the best rational decision when faced with risk of burning in hell for eternity. It is convincing because of the scare tactic.
he could be right, but hey we live in a live now society, i don't think people are going 2 change overnight. they are worried about their 9 to 5's and have no time for decisions like theese.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott
My God. You found the root cause. I applaud you. It has so much more credibility than what the alarmists propose with CO2!
The answer to the riddle: Politics is messy. It is a comprimise between what should happen and what is possible to end up with what happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The future of debate on this will be per capita emissions. By that measure, China and India can contribute roughly 3 times what the US does, and that is pretty fair. That measure DOES treat all countries equally.
The trick will be reducing per capita carbon emmissions world-wide.
As for everything else, yes it is disputable, but disputable is irrelevant, as the video points out.
We will not have certain data to act on and must choose a course of action based on incomplete data, as is often the case in anything.
If one really wants some perspective, one should watch the videos by Hans Rosling. He has two main videos that should be watched in order, although the second one is where he starts talking about carbon emissions.
The main thrust of this is a presentation about economic data of all sorts in a global perspective. Each presentation is about 20 minutes, but is VERY VERY worth watching. It is not your normal dry, boring presentation and is quite engaging and informing.
The second one has an ending that one would not expect from from any normal economist, and made me absolutely determined to get this guy's autograph, because I am that kind of nerd.
2006 presentation
2007 presentation
Couldn't find the second one on youtube, but if you like the above, I am sure you can find them if you put your mind to it.
That is so very wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Hellmuth
This is not logic that "proves" anything. This is logic that defines courses of actions, based on incomplete information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
This is, again getting into the specifics of the debate, and that is covered in other threads. Did you actually watch the video in the OP?
Politics is sometimes just flat out wqrong too. Take the same aspect and apply it to Christianity. On the very slight chance that a consencuc of people could agree that souls would be lost to hell if they do not accept Jesus, should we force such an action?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Political and public consensus is manipulated when it comes to global warming. When you look at the facts, it is clear than man is not the cause of warming to any scale cited.
Does it? I would agree with that assessment of the forces of world governments required the developing nations to use the latest technologies, but they dont!Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Solar, wind, geothermal power generation will help. These are insignificant to the needs of future power. If the powers to be are really concerned about the greenhouse gasses rather than taking the reigns of economic power, then why is there a push for things like ethonal and carbon credits. Ethanol creates even more greenhouse gasses, and carbon credits are just a tax that really is more for show than making a difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
We need to build more nuclear plants and generate hydrogen fuels from them. Otherwise, the only way to reduce greenhouse gasses is to stop the usage of fossile fuels and go dark.
If they had a valid concept, I would agree. However, the idea that we are generating greenhouse gasses to a level of causing problems is flat out false. Nobody who understands the sciences behind greenhouse gas emmissions agree that we are causing the problems with CO2. Only the people who stand to gain power or money from the scare are promiting it, except those who remain ignorant of the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
What data. I have so far been able to dispute everything. I', not so good at the black and white of the law, but I am at the physical sciences.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
The only man made global warming I have seen any evidence of is the black carbon (soot) that traps the suns energy on ice, melting it rather than reflecting the energy back into space. Once we lose the ice cap over the arctic, the ocean then absorbs about 90% of the sunlight rather than reflecting about 90%! This is pollution, in the form of unburned carbon, not CO2 as an anthropogenic greenhouse gas.
First world nations have limited pollutions, methane, and other gasses as good as practical. Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas on earth. To take CO2 to levels that might start having a measurable effect on the temperature, you have to increase it to lethal levels first. Considering how much the biosphere and oceans absorb, we would likely have to burn 20 to 30 times as much fossil fuels as we do today to achieve that, and we might then raise the average temperature by 0.3 C
The sun clearly has a greater effect on the earths temperature than CO2. Consider this graph:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...insolation.jpg
The red graph is temperature. It has fluctuated from about a -1 C to a +2 C over the last approximate 11,000 years, Notice how it most closely resembles the pattern of the upper of the two orange lines, which is another isotope proxy. Oxygen-18. Like Carbon-14, it is created in the upper atmosphere by the solar radiation. The stronger the solar radiation, the more atoms get converted.
When you look at atmospheric concentrations closely of CO2 and CH4, it becomes clear that their levels roughly follow temperature changes. As life grows more abundant, so does the gasses that are part of the cycles of life. Notice how CO2 and CH4 levels for the most part follow each other with the cycle of life.
Another thing to consider. Now if memory serves me, this is a 2004 graph. It shows CO2 at about 285 ppm to the far left. Today, it is well over 350 ppm. At the same time, about 11,000 years ago, our temperature went into the approximate 1,500 year cycle from the +2 to -2 C, CO2 is still rising without having an effect on this cycle. Now if temperature followed CO2, shouldn’t, by this graph, temperatures today be more like +4 of the right temperature scale?
Oh… one more thing to consider. The Solar Proxies, C-14, O-18, Be-10, etc. all track close to the solar activity. They are not created by temperature changes, but by solar radiation levels.
Some wiki references:
Berylium Isotopes:
Carbon 14:Quote:
10Be is produced in the atmosphere by cosmic ray spallation of oxygen and nitrogen. Because beryllium tends to exist in solution at pH levels less than about 5.5 (and most rainwater has a pH less than 5), it will enter into solution and be transported to the Earth's surface via rainwater. As the precipitation quickly becomes more alkaline, beryllium drops out of solution. Cosmogenic 10Be thereby accumulates at the soil surface, where its relatively long half-life (1.51 million years) permits a long residence time before decaying to 9B. 10Be and its daughter products have been used to examine soil erosion, soil formation from regolith, the development of lateritic soils, as well as variations in solar activity and the age of ice cores.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ty_Proxies.png
Quote:
Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms. When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons. The resulting neutrons (1n) participate in the following reaction:
1n + 14N → 14C + 1H
The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 50,000 feet) and at high geomagnetic latitudes, but the carbon-14 readily mixes and becomes evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere and reacts with oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide also dissolves in water and thus permeates the oceans.
Oxygen 18
Now here is a copy of a past argument I made:Quote:
Paleoclimatology
In Arctic and Antarctic ice cores, O-18 is used to retrieve the original temperatures of the precipitation during different years by analyzing the isotope ratio of the respective annual layers of ice.
Now I later supplied graphs of the finer resolutions of CO2 spectra:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Quote:
More on the atmospheric saturation of heat trapping.
Please note that in the Real Climate link describing the spectral data, it gave calculations and a nice graph for CO2. It is similar to this. Note that each mark of the left side are factors of 10. It is not a linear graph, but logarithmic:
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...CO2spectra.jpg
Now remember what I said about looking at the data in finer resolution? I said 0.1 micrometers, but you actually need to look finer than that. My mistake, sue me. Also note that you need equipment sensitive enough to make true measurements. Here are refined views of the area in question:
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...umexpanded.jpg
Consider how the narrow bands are so discrete. They really never get to 100%. Equipment measurements that cannot discern such resolutions give false reading. This is another indication that CO2 does not trap as much heat as you guys suspect.
Molecules vibrate at pure frequencies. As an electronics expert, and operating several types of Frequency Selective measurement equipment, I know how the sensitivity and bandwidth affects a graph. There are not really any curved areas when dealing with molecular vibration frequencies. What you see is the lack of the equipment to give clear resolution. The higher the bandwidth that the receiver, the smoother the signal looks. Often to the point of making the changes invisible from zero to maximum.
Link for above data from CalTech:
Carbon dioxide images from HITRAN 2004
Heh. You haven't actually watched the video have you?
I did. I find the theory sound when dealing with possibilities that actually exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
BUT
For the record: nuclear power sucks sweaty monkey balls, for a lot of reasons.
Not that I am against nuclear per se, I just don't see it as very practical.
Distributed solar and wind will step up to the gap, as will very clean coal.
Long term, nuclear will fall by the wayside for things like this:
Space-based solar power
The sun puts out more energy in 2 second than mankind has ever used.
Solar power in space offers 24 hour power uninterrupted by clouds/storms.
It might not even be horribly efficient, but when you can build a collecting array 200 miles long by 200 miles wide, it doesn't have to be.
(grins) You want a fight over "does man-made global warming exist?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
As the guy in the video points out, you can fight guys who are much better at this sort of stuff than I am, like say, the National Academy of Sciences.
I will go to town on economics, finance, military affairs, geopolitics, and energy, but I have long ago given up on trying to debate "yes/no global warming".
You can no more conclusively prove causality than the side you propose to debunk, despite your statements otherwise. The fact that you say "it doesn't exist" actually proves little other than your unfamiliarity with the scientific method.
Say scott! How'ya been? Apparently, that never get's old.Quote:
Originally Posted by scott
35 Inconvenient Truths
The memorandum goes on from there to itemize 35 errors in the movie, "An Inconvenient Truth."Quote:
Originally Posted by The errors in Al Gore’s movie
So, we go from "...thousands and thousands..." of fact down to a few dozen and, of those, 35 are FUBARed?
Okay, I'll watch the movie now...it should be a real hoot.
I find it rather amusing that conservatives have taken up "no global warming" as some kind of cause celebre with the only aim being to discredit the green movement.
As the video in the OP points out, I do not have to be an expert on such things to figure out a course of action.
You have made up your mind, Cobra, and that is good, but don't pretend you have "conclusive" proof anymore than the thousands of scientists who disagree with you.
For me, it is not my area of interest/expertise. Until we have some greater scientific consensus, I will act on the probability that those thousands of scientists aren't lying and have some decent reason to believe they are correct.
If you want an argument about the specifics, you will not get it from me.
I disagree. We have learned many things about nuclear safety that activist pressures keep us from applying.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Clean coal is what we use in the USA. We need to get China to use it. It still produces CO2 for those concerned about greenhouse gasses.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Hmmm.... about 1 Giga Watt and less power per cm than a cell phone? At 1 square KM surface antenna, the intensity has to be about 100 milli-watts per cm, or is my math wrong? I don't consider that low intensity, but it is at least at safe levels should the transmission get knocked out of alignment temporarily.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
At least they might be on a right path here.
Probem is that there is no evidence when looked at closely that we are causing global warming, except for the black carbon issues. Propaganda is the major force here.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Have you noted for example how many IPCC scientists were actual climatologists?
You are right. I cannot conclusively say what I imply. However, the probability that I am wrong is so rediculously small, we are more likely to be wiped out by an asteroid.
Nuclear power sucks sweaty monkey balls because at the end of the day, you still have to dispose of the waste, something politically impossible.
If you think otherwise, we can locate the facility 10 miles from your house. ;)
I know that modern reactor designs are very safe. Safety isn't as much of an issue to me, as the increased amounts of fuel and waste shipments required, and the determination of a certain suicidal segment of the human population's determination to use materials from fuel/waste shipments as major components of carbombs.
In the end it will be about ecnomics. The economics of making the extra plants, fuel and waste shipments secure from suicide attacks will drive up the costs of that power far beyond what nuclear proponents either know about, or would admit if they did.
The thing about microwave power transmission is that it can be attuned so that you can literally stand on the antenna while it is working.
Microwave ovens cook because the frequency used is absorbed by water and other organic matter. It is a simple matter to simply attenuate the transmission into a band that is not harmonic with organic matter.
The main barrier to space based power is, as the article points out, cost.
The main cost driver for space based power is the cost of getting things into orbit, roughtly 5-10 thousand per pound.
The easiest way to overcome this cost is avoid it.
The easiest way to avoid it, is to use materials that are already near the earth in the construction. A manufacturing facility at a LaGrange point using asteroid material (asteroids are VERY rich in metals) can crank out simple panels at ZERO cost to the environment, other than the rocket exhaust from servicing missions.
Here is something on asteroid mining for the more scientifically and business minded.
The first company or nation to get into space in a big way will reap MASSIVELY.
We can let that be China or India, or we can do it. Hell after we get the first real infrastructure built, private industry will pick up the ball and get things rolling, to create a self-sustaining and profitable space-based economy.
(shrugs)
It is possible now, except for the political will. Sad really, because it has the potential to improve living standards world-wide.
Meh.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
If the global warming alarmists spent even 1/10th the amount of time on the debunking websites reading stuff that they do on the greenie sites, I *might* have some modicum or respect for them.
As it is, I have come to one inescapable conclusion.
The "GW" movement is a religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
RG, they haven't taken up: No Global Warming! Most
just say mankind is not causing it. The temp of the
Earth has always fluctuate and always will.
As for the scientific consensus part. Many said the
world was flat and that everything revolved around
the earth. And those two things were by a consensus
of scientist of that period. They were wrong, weren't
they? Now I will give you one point, we, I, could be
wrong and we are causing it. But like you, someone
with more credibility than RNR and Gore and a bunch
of earth worshipers are going to have to convince me.
I just don't think mankind can affect the whole of the
earth. Maybe a small area, but not as a whole.
I was in the field of communications for 10 years, specifically microwave communication. I now a thing or two about them.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Now consider if we allow an intensity of 1 watt per centimeter, which would be safe for such an undertaking, it would take one billion centimeters of are to capture 1 giga-watt, assuming a perfectly confined beam. It would take the pattern of a circle most likely, and be a diameter of 357 meters (0.222 miles). OK, we can fit quite a few satellites and recieving station at that size. Not to disrupt communications? I'm not qualified for that, but I'm going to assume the power has to be reduced to the mid microwatt/cm levels not to interfere with satellite recieves that operate at pico-watt levels, by the minor troposheric scattering. Let's say 100 microwatts. That is 1/10,000th the power, and we now need a reciever 100 times larger in diameter, or 35.7 km (22.2 miles) What type of impact does that have over the ocean or desert? How many of these giga-watt producing facilities can the earth accomodate before running scare of land or sea for other reasons?
Where does the real power levels and size come in at? I can only guess, but there are problems involved with such things.
You are right on the disposal of waste material. It hasQuote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
been politicized to the point it has become one of those
"not in my backyard" things.
You made the statement a couple of post back about
wind power. Well the environmentalist are bitching
now that the wind turbines are killing the birds. Coal,
like WC said, gives off CO2 and anything else that burns.
And all these do-gooders are bitching they are
destroying the earth. So are we suppose to do?
Do without I suppose.
This is waaaay beyond my area of expertise to answer. From what I remember, the size of the receiver is roughly analogous to the size of most power plant facilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Fuck the birds. If they can't figure out how to avoid the things, our needs for power trump their survival. I am something of an environmentalist, but even *I* have my limits.Quote:
Originally Posted by xrayzebra
This stuff is actual science, and beyond my capabilities to adequately assess. If you tell me that you have the expertise to effectively evaluate it, I would likely not believe you.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
OK, how large is that? Any idea?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Just look at it this way. The total power received divided by the receiving antenna's area in centimeters will give an average power per centimeter rating which is a standard measurement.
1 gigawatt = 1,000,000,000 watts. Rather than using the standard power per square centimeters, I'll look at watts per square foot. Consider the following graph:
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...ttsvsacres.jpg
Now if we had a perfect beam from the satellite, we could trap nearly all the radiated power. There will be quite a bit of loss just from the fact line of sight transmissions have scatter. Still, assuming a small power plant generating 100 mega-watts with a 20 acre receiving field, anyone walking in the area will receive a continuous 100+ watts of radiation! How is this safe at all?
A standard parabolic antenna wouldn’t work for the satellite transmitter very well because they don’t produce a tight enough pattern. How does one generate that much power of coherent microwave energy? How powerful can a MASER be made? Since they operate with resonance chambers, containing any amount of high power is next to impossible.
I wonder if this is all just a dream, or if these problems have been addressed.
If a power station collector is the size of a standard power plant, how will the birds avoid being cooked by the microwave oven effect?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
One can apply this same logic to going into Iraq.
It depends on the frequency of that power, if memory serves. I can find a link or two can get back to you on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Actually my response was aimed more at wind generators than microwave power receivers.
Here is a good start, but I would guess you want something a bit more technical, Cobra
Initial feasibility study by the DOD Link to the pdf file can be seen from this 2007 report
Here is a link to the National Space Society Solar Power library
I know that. However, you refered to how dumb birds are flying into the blades. My point was that birds cannot avaid being cooked by radiation they cannot see. I have my limits too. I can also say fuck the birds that are too dumb to avoid another moving object, but an unseen threat...Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
I like the third link. Thanx. I'm downloading some of the PDF files.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Still, the simple fact is that what ever power you bean down, simple math tells you the power levels per area. Frequency matter to the extent that the higher the frequency, the smaller the actual antenna element is to collect a full wave energy signature, and that the atmosphere attenuates the power of some frequencies more than others. Also, the higher the frequency, the more sensitive the design is to phase problems. Without looking at a detailed graph, it appears most frequencies under 10 GHZ are usable. 10 GHZ is a 3 centimeter wave.
I have a pretty extensive knowledge of the sciences. I have modeled this idea and every time I found a problem, I found a solution. It is very feasible if we ignore the dangers of the power densities. If we use a 1 GHZ signal, we can have a phased array of transmitters in space. One example would by a 100 x 100 array each transmitting 100 k watts. Now we wouldn't use a simple box design, but for simplicity of example, it will suffice. The farthest two transmitters could be as far as 1.3 km apart in space, and their signals would be no more than 1 cm different at the earth receiver, or about 12 degrees of phase. The math gets a little more complex here, need trigonometry to see the power change. Still, 12 degrees has a minor effect on the power, but the less the better for efficiency. This 0.94 km would also be a 9.4 meter spacing between transmitters, whereas a meter or less would be sufficient, reducing the phase farther. I earlier mentioned problems in the coherent power, then though of using a single driver signal with phase control, going to multiple TWATs (Traveling Wave Amplifier Tube.) I've used them as powerful as 10,000 watts, why not 100,000 watts each?
Still, the major problem lies with my very first assessment. Power densities are too high. They present unacceptable dangers. To make a large enough field to reduce the power density then gets you into the phase problems as well, canceling out usable power.
You would think this would have been as newsworthy as Algore being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
A United Nations scientist has refused the Nobel prize that he (as part of the IPCC) is supposed to share with Al Gore, and for the most damning possible reason.
The scientist (IPCC member John R. Christy) claims that the prize was based on a misunderstanding of science:
Sheffield quotes from Christy's piece in the Wall Street Journal which explains further:Quote:
Has the global warming alarmism movement hit its apex? Maybe so. In recent weeks, we've seen a resurgence of hard scientists who have come out strongly against the warm-mongers, the latest of which is Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change member John R. Christy who in an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal tells the world that not only does he not believe no one's proven humans cause global warming, he's refusing his "share" of the Nobel Peace Prize that he was awarded because it was based on a misunderstanding of science.
What Christy has done amounts to high treason, if not outright apostasy.Quote:
I've had a lot of fun recently with my tiny (and unofficial) slice of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, though I was one of thousands of IPCC participants, I don't think I will add "0.0001 Nobel Laureate" to my resume.
The other half of the prize was awarded to former Vice President Al Gore, whose carbon footprint would stomp my neighborhood flat.....
[...]
It is my turn to cringe when I hear overstated-confidence from those who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over the next 100 years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to accurately predict that system's behavior over the next five days.
Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us. As my high-school physics teacher admonished us in those we-shall-conquer-the-world-with-a-slide-rule days, "Begin all of your scientific pronouncements with 'At our present level of ignorance, we think we know . . .'"
I haven't seen that type of climate humility lately. Rather I see jump-to-conclusions advocates and, unfortunately, some scientists who see in every weather anomaly the specter of a global-warming apocalypse. Explaining each successive phenomenon as a result of human action gives them comfort and an easy answer.
Fortunately, the global warming alarmists don't issue fatwas or behead people, so I think he won't suffer the extreme penalty.
I admire him for his skepticism.
But I'm old enough to remember when skepticism was considered an integral part of science. And the idea of heresy was thought of in religious terms (and medieval ones at that).
Considering the resurgence of the heresy meme via newly invented morality in so many areas, I sometimes wonder about something.
Do humans need heresy? Is it possible that there is a deep-seated human need to regard certain views as heresy? I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that there might be a heresy gene, but it seems to occupy a stubborn emotional niche, especially for those who believe in collective thinking, and it is not going away. I realize that people want definitive answers to unknowable questions as well as questions which are over their heads. But what is it that drives intelligent people to want such definite answers so badly that they must label dissenting views as heretical, immoral, and downright evil?
I wish I knew.
Meanwhile, even more global-climate change 'propaganda' effects are surfacing.......
GuardianQuote:
Empty shelves in Caracas. Food riots in West Bengal and Mexico. Warnings of hunger in Jamaica, Nepal, the Philippines and sub-Saharan Africa. Soaring prices for basic foods are beginning to lead to political instability, with governments being forced to step in to artificially control the cost of bread, maize, rice and dairy products.
Record world prices for most staple foods have led to 18% food price inflation in China, 13% in Indonesia and Pakistan, and 10% or more in Latin America, Russia and India, according to the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO). Wheat has doubled in price, maize is nearly 50% higher than a year ago and rice is 20% more expensive, says the UN. Next week the FAO is expected to say that global food reserves are at their lowest in 25 years and that prices will remain high for years.
Last week the Kremlin forced Russian companies to freeze the price of milk, bread and other foods until January 31, for fear of a public backlash with a parliamentary election looming. "The price of goods has risen sharply and that has hit the poor particularly hard," said Oleg Savelyev, of the Levada Centre polling institute.
India, Yemen, Mexico, Burkina Faso and several other countries have had, or been close to, food riots in the last year, something not seen in decades of low global food commodity prices. Meanwhile, there are shortages of beef, chicken and milk in Venezuela and other countries as governments try to keep a lid on food price inflation.
Haha me too.Quote:
Well RG, I watched up to the point of the "action" "inaction"
on the white board.
Americans are cool with the government using global warming as a way to get into office and spend their money but when it comes to buying TVs and SUVS just swipe the credit card mang.
Life is good.
Did anyone see the irony in yesterday's NBC Football broadcast where Bob Costas and gang sat in a dark studio, using candle light, for the half-time and post-game shows while they did a remote spot with Matt Lauer, on a glacier in the Arctic circle, that was lit up like a freakin' football stadium?
We'll save the planet by sitting here looking like fools in the dark while Matt Lauer uses 10 times more energy to heat up the surface of a glacier so we can talk about global climate change.
This whole global climate change nonsense has become farce.
Good Video on Global Warming
There's also a Part II, III, and IV.
From Newsbusters, which as usual is chock full of anti-global-warming-hysterics postings.
Great find Yoni. On part three right now. This guy nails it.
C'mon, I thought this was the crisis of our lifetime -- and that of our children's lifetimes -- can't anyone be bothered to view the video and respond to the claims?
You guys will spend 20 pages talking about WTC 7 but, when someone actually posts a thoughtful, intelligent, and informative refutation to the global war...er, climate change nonsense, you ignore it as if it isn't pertinent.
What kind of forum is this?
:::bump:::
Good Video on Global Warming
There's also a Part II, III, and IV.
From Newsbusters, which as usual is chock full of anti-global-warming-hysterics postings.
Where are all the gardamned Global Warmer nuts all of a sudden?
What's the matter, Algore hasn't posted a response to Professor Carter?
The science of this matter is way past most liberals heads. They know it. They are at least smart enough to stay silent oin this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Dammit. They are no fun today...
Nice discovery for me on the NewsBusters link:
NewsBusted Conservative Comedy, Ep. 117
Wow... I have allot to watch!
And, speaking of Algore...c'mon you chicken bastards!!! Defend his inconvenient truths.
:::bump:::
You guys are pathetic.
Meh.
The Liberals never answer any tough questions on this board. Just review the threads that end with one directed at them. Just let them fall off the front page.
This one will be bumped to the front page until I lose interest.
Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
Global warming hysteria is the signature approach to everthing for liberals. They develop a narrative, draft an article of faith, and then hold onto to it until, well, I can't say I've ever seen a liberal admit they're wrong on issues this large.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
Indeed. Just another variation of the neo-Luddite green movement which has spawned such artists as The Unabomber.
Unfortunately, this has spawned a movement of political leaders ramping up to spend trillions of dollars to accomplish nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Holt's Cat
Funny you mention the Unabomber. I'm reminded of this:
Did Al Gore say it? Or was it the Unabomber?
I wished old RNR from Aussie land would come on in and refute
the video's. And tell us once again how he is fighting the
global warming issues with his sacrifices.
Even old Chump and GGA cant come up with one of their little
put downs.
And Yoni, the really sad thing is is some of the RepublicansQuote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
are now jumping on the "global warming" band wagon.
Damn politicians don't know anything and are experts
on everything. About the only thing they are good at
is spending our money.
Well, I'm optimistic this has been nipped in the bud and that the shameless panderers (of all political stripes but, particularly, Republican) that are buying in simply because they thought the battle was lost and, therefore, were becoming joiners because they couldn't be beaters, will begin to pull back in the face of significant scientific refutation of their folly.Quote:
Originally Posted by xrayzebra
We'll see. I'm hopeful it's not too late.
I think I spanked RnR's butt too good for him to come back and try to dispute my claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by xrayzebra
:::bump:::
Good Video on Global Warming
There's also a Part II, III, and IV.
From Newsbusters, which as usual is chock full of anti-global-warming-hysterics postings.
:tuQuote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Pirate Attacks Increase WorldwideQuote:
Originally Posted by scott
It should start cooling off any day now.
Never let it be said the U. S. Military can't fight a war on multiple fronts AND solve the global warming crisis!Quote:
Originally Posted by UV Ray
Report: Somali pirates want U.S. Navy to back off
North Korea thanks U.S. Navy for help in fighting off pirates
Pirates leave ships under US Navy escort
and on and on and on the stories go...
Which reminds me of a joke, as retold in the book Plato And A Platypus Walk Into A Bar by Cathcart and Klien:
It was autumn and the Indians on the reservation asked their new chief if it was going to be a cold winter. Raised in the ways of the modern world the chief had never been taught the old secrets and had no way of knowing whether the winter would be cold or mild. To be on the safe side, he advised the tribe to collect wood and be prepared for a cold winter. A few days later, as a practical afterthought, he called the National Weather Service and asked whether they were forecasting a cold winter. The meteorologist replied that, indeed, he thought the winter would be quite cold. The chief advised the tribe to stock even more wood.
A couple of weeks later, the chief checked in again with the Weather Service. “Does it still look like a cold winter?” asked the chief..
“It sure does,” replied the meteorologist. “It looks like a very cold winter.” The chief advised the tribe to gather up every scrap of wood they could find.
A couple of weeks later, the chief called the Weather Service again and asked how the winter was looking at that point. The meteorologist said, “ We’re now forecasting that it will be one of the coldest winters on record!”
“Really?” said the chief. “How can you be so sure?”
The meteorologist replied, “The Indians are collecting wood like crazy!”
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
:::bump:::
Good Video on Global Warming
There's also a Part II, III, and IV.
From Newsbusters, which as usual is chock full of anti-global-warming-hysterics postings.
No, Yoni.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
The U.S. is actively REDUCING the number of Pirates; thus INCREASING the instance of Global Warming (it is a reverse correlation).
Big oil, the Repugs and the Religious Right are, no doubt, behind this.
I saw an NBADan post that indicated that the reason for the whole thing is some rich Republican Donors have bought up a bunch of Islands buried beneath both polar ice caps.
By reducing pirates it serves two purposes for these people that don't pay their own way: It makes it easier to ship their indentured servants and piles of bullion to those islands, which will soon be uncovered as the ice melts!
Ooops! My bad, I never looked at the axis. Very deceptive, Scott! Kind of like the "hockey stick" graph, the statistically insignificant data sets graphs, etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...uh, well, mmmm, you just can't fool me again.
Makes sense. Yes, all of it makes sense now.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
bump
The silence is deafening!!!
Come on, bring us some consensus!
:::bump:::
Good Video on Global Warming
There's also a Part II, III, and IV.
From Newsbusters, which as usual is chock full of anti-global-warming-hysterics postings.
Since Yoni apparantly isn't here:Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
bump
Looks to me like a few good volcanic eruptions could fix this whole global warming thing, pronto!
http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif
Along about January we will be wanting some of that global
warming.
From the mid-19th century, when the above graph shows ramping up through 57F, the industrialization, buring coal and oil and wood, plus industrial farming (animal farts) has been pumping billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the air.
So what is cause(s)? a few eruptions? or human activity? or something else? we know atmospheric pollution from human activity has been monotonically increasing, as has the temperature, the basis of why non-politicized, uncorrupted scientists are convinced humans are causing the warming.
500,000,000 years from now the sun is going to swallow the earth, how green do we have to get to prevent it?
And, another nail in the anthropogenic global climate change alarmist's coffins.
Advocates of anthropogenic global warming ::cough::Algore::cough:: want you to believe that the science is settled and there is nothing left to debate. But this is the opposite of the truth; in fact, climate science is in its infancy and virtually every proposition relating to it is controversial.
A case in point: the computer programs that tell us that human activity will lead to catastrophic warming assume that warmer temperatures will give rise to more high-altitude clouds, which in turn will trap heat in the earth's atmosphere and create a positive feedback loop. Recent research suggests, however, that increasing temperatures will have the opposite effect, reducing the incidence of high-altitude clouds and thereby creating a safety valve rather than reinforcing the original warming. The research was published in Geophysical Research Letters by Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell, John R. Christy and Justin Hnilo (Sorry George "Dont Fuck With Me" Gervin's Afro, no link available):
That's a remarkable quote: "Everyone just assumed" that more rainfall means more high altitude clouds. That is the level of scientific certainty on which claims of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geophysical Research Letters
This NASA study already took the Iris Effect into account --Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by NASA
I know the PowerLine Blog post you copied didn't have the link available, but here is a link to the abstract on the paper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Link
Evidently the Bush EPA believes there is some consensus --Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bush EPA
Thanks Peabody.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody
More bureaucrats. I think it's an "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" phenomenon. As the science becomes more definitive, the politicians will begin to back away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody
Who care if the Earth is heating. We can all move to Alaska and sew the land.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smeagol
That's the spirit.
:cheer :cheer :cheer :cheer :cheer :cheer :cheer :cheer
NASA and university scientists have determined that reversals in Arctic Ocean circulation, which is caused by atmospheric circulation changes, vary by the decades. "The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming."
Not to get too scientific on you, the pattern of circulation in the Arctic affected the salinity of the upper ocean near the North Pole, which decreased its weight (specific gravity) and changed its circulation. But this is a naturally occurring change. "Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming."
According to the report, it is too early to say but the Arctic Ocean is ready to start swinging back to its counterclockwise circulation pattern .. but change back it will, and then back the other way ... and so forth. I wonder what OwlGore will be saying when that happens.
... except that when most/all the millenially Arctic/Greeland ancient ice is melted, talk about decadal differences will be, is, meaningless. Yoni is ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_
When is this all suppose occur. Not in my lifetime or yours
or your kids lifetime. All these global warming people
will only tell you that it is a crisis and must be addressed
now. Including you boutons. Science my foot. There
are some either side of the issue. I choose the one where
man has little difference to earth. Except in localized
cases. Like burning leaves in your yard and the folks
next door get the smoke.
That wouldn't be a problem if Bush hadn't assassinated Captain Planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by inconvertible
Sun and global warming: A cosmic connection?
Wow! Who woulda thunkit?