Printable View
I don't play well with statistics. I realized I should have done that differently after posting the numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Key point. None of the usage by the IPCC is certain!
I don't care if they claim 90% or more. They are wrong!
Facts make statistics.
Statistics DO NOT make facts!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Not only that, but it will take a massive amount of fossil fuels to make this happen. Have you seen all the big trucks hauling the windmill blades lately? I can only assume they are all being hauled to T. Boone Pickens' wind farm. All I know is I see them almost daily heading West.
Let's see. Earth with no solar radiation, best case, 55 KQuote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Earth currently at 288 K
288 - 55 = 233 change in temperature (K or C).
233 times 0.0007 = 0.163 change in Celsius based on 55 K dead earth temperature and 0.07% solar radiation increase.
From IPCC; AR4WG1_Pub_Ch01.pdf, chapter 1.4.3, Solar Variability and the Total Solar Irradiance, page 108:
They say they have reassessed the value. However, a 0.3% increase would account for about all the warming we have seen, and a 0.24% would be more about 2/3rds of it!Quote:
These satellite data have been used in combination with the historically recorded sunspot number, records of cosmogenic isotopes, and the characteristics of other Sun-like stars to estimate the solar radiation over the last 1,000 years (Eddy, 1976; Hoyt and Schatten, 1993, 1997; Lean et al., 1995; Lean, 1997). These data sets indicated quasi-periodic changes in solar radiation of 0.24 to 0.30% on the centennial time scale. These values have recently been re-assessed (see, e.g., Chapter 2).
Now in Chapter 2, the IPCC uses a model of about They have a human +solar effect at 0.6 watts to 2.4 watts. Solar is at 0.06 watts to 0.3 watts. If we take their estimated 1.6 watts of warming and do some math with the estimated 0.12 solar:
1.6 watts of warming = 0.74 C = 2.16 watts per degree C
0.12 watts of solar = 0.055 C due to solar.
That’s by the IPCC numbers. However, they admit a minimum of 0.24% increase in solar radiation. The Earth would be dead cold without the sun. The be is around 5 K to 55 K with no sun. At 5 K the sun warms the earth with the greenhouse effect feedback system to about 15 C, or about 283 K of warming. Only 233 K of warming at 55 K for no solar radiation.
0.24% of 233 K = 0.56 C of warming
0.24% of 283 K = 0.68 C of warming
Why does the IPCC purposely lie? They aren’t that ignorant to solar radiation, are they? Did they misplace a decimal point? Maybe that’s what happens when you have Climatologists assess situations that include solar radiation with no such disciplines of science?
If we use the 0.3% the IPCC admits to:
0.3% of 233 K = 0.7 C of warming
0.3% of 283 K = 0.85 C of warming
Warming is estimated by the IPCC report at 0.74 C +/- 0.18 C (0.56 C to 0.92 C.)
Is this how they justify the lie, chapter 2 Executive Summary, page 132:
Quote:
The direct RF due to increases in solar irradiance since 1750 is estimated to be +0.12 [–0.06, +0.18] W m–2, with a low level of scientific understanding.
I think you simply don't understand my answers!Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
that video made me lol. it's as if it's trying to destroy the debate, and force the global warming religion down our throats, just because there is a remote possibility that it could happen.
-Mars
Here's a very important video related to the solar effects:
From Failure to Warm
Occasional Address
AGM Lavoisier Group 22 October, 2007
David Archibald:
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...dArchibald.jpg
Here's a short temperature reconstruction:
And one on why CO2 cannot be blamed:
Here's another thing to consider. The northern ice melt:
Hi Resolution Animation of the Norther Ice melt 2008 (88 MB)
Satellite reconstruction of Ice Melt animation (40 MB)
Why is the majority melt under the Jet Stream that comes from Asia?
Could it be the soot it carries...
i found ice in my freezer.
Haven't seen a reply since last year (two days ago.)
Not really "massive amount" of fossil fuels. Any power source built today will consume fossil fuels.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
To be sure, you burn oil digging up ore, transporting it, smelting and forming to into something useful and transporting and assembling it, just like any other machinery, and you will burn some oil fuels maintaining them, but after the initial investment, it starts adding CO2 free energy into the system for decades.
The good thing about wind though over coal is that you don't have to continuously burn energy digging up coal transporting it, then cleaning up after burning it.
It isn't advocating either theory. It is advocating a response to risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClingingMars
There is a remote possibility that your house will burn down, but yet you buy fire insurance. Why?
By the by, I didn't say that at all. The nuclear power plants built in the US were of many different designs.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Standardization tends to drive unit costs down, and one of the things that has made nukes expensive in the past has been a lack of standardization.
Indeed we would have started taking some steps, as would have been prudent based on the best available information.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
If you follow that guy's logic, you would avoid drinking bacon grease with every meal.
If you follow that guy's logic, you would avoid smoking cigarettes.
If you follow that guy's logic, you would buy health insurance.
If you follow that guy's logic, you would insure your house against damage.
We CAN'T know the future, but we CAN take reasonable steps to mitigate the risk of loss.
Indeed, it could be. It seems to be a reasonable conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I was referring to the chart in the link you gave.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
1) Nuclear is NOT the only realistic solution to the problem. That is a false assumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
2) I have never advocated a radical multi-trillion dollar, do it all right now approach. That is silly. Please stop claiming I do without actually asking me what I think, it's rude.
My biggest pet peeve about conservatives is that in Conservative World, all "liberals" believe that we need to stop burning any fossil fuels right now, give up our cars, start eating grass, and lower our standard of living to levels that would make a midieval monk's lifestyle look like Caligula.
Please stop it.
Here is what I think we SHOULD do based on what evidence is available:
A strong investment in renewables, starting with solar and wind.
Encourage and promote a more distributed and robust electrical grid.
Encourage and promote efficiency.
Research and development into large-scale storage systems, such as industrial-sized fuel cells.
Given:
Risk has two dimensions.
Scale of loss and probability of occurance.
WC and the deniers, when they are being honest, will agree that if we really do get into the worst case GW scenario as the AGW alarmists claim, it will be catastrophic.
They spend their time attacking the probability of occurance, which they put at virtually nil.
OK, fine.
They say then, that we should do/change absolutely nothing based on this, because "we will ruin our economy doing it", which is their worst-case scenario.
OK, fine.
Now provide data that supports that assessment of probability.
It is claimed to be a near certainty that we will ruin our economy and standard of living by moderating our greenhouse gas emission profile.
Your claim.
Your burden of proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Aren't you glad that we didn't spend billions of dollars back in the 70's trying to prevent the impending ice age that scientists were predicting?
A simple question for you. If IPCC model predictions are erroneous over the short term, how much confidence do you have in their long-term predictions?
By the way, when IPCC reports use bad science, include numbers that are off by an order of magnitude, and censor comments from scientists whose opinions don't support their agenda, I have to consider them no more credible than the UN.
An interesting quote from Albert Einstein:
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
I wonder what he would think about "consensus" science?
You started off good but have been slipping on the intellectual honesty scale. Let's try it this way.
What percentage of world energy supply do you believe renewables can supply and how long will it take to implement? Doomsday is in 41 years max.Quote:
A strong investment in renewables, starting with solar and wind.
What impact will this have on atmospheric CO2 levels and how long will it take to implement? Doomsday is in 41 years max.Quote:
Encourage and promote a more distributed and robust electrical grid.
Specifics? How much can we reduce CO2 emissions through efficiency factoring in the fact that the world population will increase from 6 to 9 billion by 2050? How long will it take to implement these improvements in efficiency? Doomsday is in 41 years max.Quote:
Encourage and promote efficiency.
How long will research, development, and implementation take? Doomsday is in 41 years max.Quote:
Research and development into large-scale storage systems, such as industrial-sized fuel cells.
Global Warming Theory is your claim not mine.Quote:
Your claim.
Your burden of proof.
Economic Implosion Theory is your claim, not mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
...or to be more precise, WC's.
Do you think we should not do anything because it would harm our economy for something that doesn't exist?
Yes or no or an alternative.
Define "anything".
I've given it a lot more shrift than you have, actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Intellectual honesty and good critical thinking requires one to provide proof for one's assertions when asked fairly.
You have not done so, when asked for some simple proposals as to how the limitations of nuclear will be overcome to make it the "only realistic option" for massively reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Renewables can supply 100% of the world's energy supply. Before you go apeshit about that statement, I will add the caveat: given enough time and investment. I would put that time frame to be well over a century if you want to go completely renewable. We only really get about 2% or 3% of our electricity now from renewables, and increasing that is not too hard within 10 years to 10 or even 20%. By investing in this we buy ourselves time and push the Doomsday scenario back.Quote:
What percentage of world energy supply do you believe renewables can supply and how long will it take to implement? Doomsday is in 41 years max.
Distributed power grids actually mean less economic losses from outages from any kind, and also offer less transmission loss. I don't have and likely can't provide definitive statements on the exact impact of CO2 levels. It would provide efficiency gains that would alleviate the need for new power plants, part of which would be coal, and would reasonably be concluded to reduce CO2 emissions. It would take about 10-20+ years to really implement on a large scale, to what I have read. By investing in this we buy ourselves time and push the Doomsday scenario back.Quote:
What impact will [distributed power grids] have on atmospheric CO2 levels and how long will it take to implement? Doomsday is in 41 years max.
Specifics on energy efficiency would take an entire discussion in and of itself. It is estimated that this is, out of all the things we do, the quickest and easiest thing, and has the capability of completely negating the need for new power plants to keep up with economic growth, even with global increases in population. Implementation on this would be immediate and continuous. By investing in this we buy ourselves time and push the Doomsday scenario back.Quote:
Specifics [on encouranging and promoting efficiency]? How much can we reduce CO2 emissions through efficiency factoring in the fact that the world population will increase from 6 to 9 billion by 2050? How long will it take to implement these improvements in efficiency? Doomsday is in 41 years max.
Unknown. Were I to guess, 10-15 years. Large fuel cells are more efficient than small ones and MUCH more technically/economically feasible. We aren't starting from scratch, and there are a lot of promising technologies out there. By investing in this we buy ourselves time and push the Doomsday scenario back.Quote:
How long will research, development, and implementation [into large-scale storage systems, such as industrial-sized fuel cells] take? Doomsday is in 41 years max.
I don't think it is really possible to completely totally stop buring fossil fuels and eliminate CO2 emissions in 41 years, or even entirely desirable.
It is VERY possible to push any Doomsday scenario back long enough for us to really find something revolutionary, or simply give ourselves the room to change at a much more gradual and sustainable pace.
We can't do it all instantly, but we didn't get our present economy instantly either. We can start the process, and buy ourselves time to really see if WC is right or not.
By the way, we can and should invest in nuclear power as well at some level, simply because, even with its limitations, it is still better than coal. By investing in this we buy ourselves time and push the Doomsday scenario back.
Should we not attempt to do any mitigating of our CO2 emissions at all because it would harm our economy to the point of a needless economic meltdown?Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
We may have done that to some extent, but by coincidence rather than intent. By the 70's we saw a terrible trend and severe problems from smog. We formed the EPA and started cleaning up the air. As I have stated before, it takes a long time (lag) before we see results from causes on global scales. These particle pollutions were no doubt, cooling the earth to at least some extent. When we removed most of them, I believe the natural warming from the increased solar radiation 1900-1950 started showing itself again.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy