Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Global Warming] Re: Catastrophic sea levels 'distinct possibility'

Expand Messages
  • Wayne
    ... Or nuclear, or wind, or solar or efficiency or.... We can t solve the problems by trying the same old solutions that have brought us here. ... The lack of
    Message 1 of 30 , May 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      poitsplace wrote:
      > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Wayne <kb0syf@...> wrote:
      >
      >> This IS a major challenge. So the
      >> situation is that we must begin to change how we use energy for
      >> transportation.
      >>
      >
      > Actually if your solution means using electric cars then coal does
      > indeed replace that oil.
      >

      Or nuclear, or wind, or solar or efficiency or....
      We can't solve the problems by trying the same old solutions that have
      brought us here.

      >
      >
      >> As I see your argument, you want to scrap or disregard climate models
      >> because they are not perfect . This is a major argument of deniers. To
      >> simply denying the validity of models without a better indicator is
      >> simply that, denialism.
      >>
      >
      > The only measure of any valid theory or model is that it have the
      > ability to predict. We're outside the error bars...there's a reason we
      > have the error bars. Guess what? The models are invalid.
      >

      The lack of validity is only opinion. The climate is influenced by many
      factors. These factors affect weather, but it cannot be said with any
      certainty that they will not be valid for the climate over time.

      >
      >
      >> To argue that because there are deficiencies in
      >> models, therefore they should not be utilized, is not a valid
      >>
      > argument.
      >
      >> We need to perfect the models as we continue. It is much like weather
      >> forecasting, the older models were not too good but did give a fair
      >> indication of short termed events. As those models have progressed,
      >>
      > the
      >
      >> short termed forecasting is very much improved and longer range events
      >> (week or so) are now about as reliable as the older short term
      >> forecasts (One to two days).
      >>
      >
      > And the climate models IMMEDIATELY started diverging from reality. The
      > problem with the models is really quite obvious. They looked at the
      > increases in temperature, looked at the expected warming from CO2 and
      > CO2 fell short. Then they came up with this silly, strong positive
      > feedback concept to explain the higher temperature increases. The
      > problem is that their assumption of MOST warming being from CO2 was
      > wrong. Less than half of the observed warming could have been from CO2.
      > Half of it or more was just a natural cycle, continued high levels of
      > solar activity, lack of volcanic activity, etc.
      >

      Again, opinion.

      >
      >
      >> Also, I disagree with your waiting game plan. Innovation and
      >>
      > perfection
      >
      >> comes with application, not from R & D. Both are necessary, but we
      >>
      > have
      >
      >> a large pool of R & D to pull from for practical application and
      >> perfection. I think that there needs to be a natural flow of
      >> application, but this is where we are today. If we wait until there is
      >> an emergency, then we must apply without natural development.
      >>
      >> If we don't react to the fact that oil is becoming more expensive and
      >> more limited in quantity, our economy will crash in a very few years
      >>
      > due
      >
      >> to the diminishing supply and resulting high price. We have been
      >>
      > warned
      >
      >> and I hope we are not lulled into complacency because of the economic
      >> slowdown recently.
      >>
      >
      > This is a multifaceted problem. We need to do a tremendous amount of
      > energy to make the MILLION 1.5MW wind turbines your scheme requires us
      > to make (along with an equally massive amount of solar). This of
      > course doesn't solve the REAL problem we have with newable energy
      > sources...the fact that they're not available on demand. We can't just
      > go dig up sunshine. We can't make the wind blow. We need a MASSIVE
      > capability to store that power. By the way storing (and subsequently
      > retransmitting) that power entails substantial losses. A BEST case
      > scenario is about 20% losses. However those methods are incredibly
      > expensive and/or could never be used on the scales necessary. The
      > viable storage options lose much more (40-50%). That pesky requirement
      > that we stockpile energy is really where it falls apart.
      >

      The digging of coal or drilling of oil also entails substantial losses.
      I have read that it requires the energy from one bbl of oil to produce
      another bbl of product.
      BTW if solar collectors are used, they are always on demand. Also fast
      or breeder reactors can supply much of our energy needs. I know your
      response will be that environmentalists will not allow that, but this is
      a problem of education. With the many problems with burning fossil, even
      neglecting global warming, it is very apparent that we must change how
      we use them and implement alternate energy as well as efficiencies and
      conservation.
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • poitsplace
      ... we ... many ... I think we can agree that as with weather models (which they essentially are) the ability to predict NOW corresponds with their ability to
      Message 2 of 30 , May 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Wayne <kb0syf@...> wrote:

        > > The only measure of any valid theory or model is that it have the
        > > ability to predict. We're outside the error bars...there's a reason
        we
        > > have the error bars. Guess what? The models are invalid.
        > >
        >
        > The lack of validity is only opinion. The climate is influenced by
        many
        > factors. These factors affect weather, but it cannot be said with any
        > certainty that they will not be valid for the climate over time.

        I think we can agree that as with weather models (which they essentially
        are) the ability to predict NOW corresponds with their ability to
        predict later. No now, no later.



        > > And the climate models IMMEDIATELY started diverging from reality.
        The
        > > problem with the models is really quite obvious. They looked at the
        > > increases in temperature, looked at the expected warming from CO2
        and
        > > CO2 fell short. Then they came up with this silly, strong positive
        > > feedback concept to explain the higher temperature increases. The
        > > problem is that their assumption of MOST warming being from CO2 was
        > > wrong. Less than half of the observed warming could have been from
        CO2.
        > > Half of it or more was just a natural cycle, continued high levels
        of
        > > solar activity, lack of volcanic activity, etc.
        > >
        >
        > Again, opinion.

        You're right, we should leave it to the experts...oops, they've failed.
        Gee, if they'd just assumed the ACTUAL rate of increase along with the
        normal warming/cooling cycle they'd be dead on right now. Oh well, not
        my fault they didn't notice an obvious pattern.



        > The digging of coal or drilling of oil also entails substantial
        losses.
        > I have read that it requires the energy from one bbl of oil to produce
        > another bbl of product.

        And this is already factored into costs. Technically the oil its self
        is "free" just like sunlight. We just have to get it out...THAT is
        where the cost comes, just like with other energy sources.


        > BTW if solar collectors are used, they are always on demand. Also fast
        > or breeder reactors can supply much of our energy needs. I know your
        > response will be that environmentalists will not allow that, but this
        is
        > a problem of education. With the many problems with burning fossil,
        even
        > neglecting global warming, it is very apparent that we must change how
        > we use them and implement alternate energy as well as efficiencies and
        > conservation.

        Solar cell are not "on demand". A weather system can take out power
        production over entire nations for days at a time. They can't produce
        power at night.

        I'm all for breeder reactors and nuclear. We just need politicians to
        grow a pair and tell the more rabbid environmentalists to shove their
        "No coal, no oil, no nuclear" nonsense.

        I'm all for efficiency and conservation. I'm also all for proven, cheap
        technologies. Solar-thermal for heating of homes, businesses and water,
        for example is much more efficient than silicon solar cells, for
        example...not to mention it uses less environmentally damaging
        materials. Shouldn't we be getting all the low lying fruit first? Why
        push economy destroying, high cost renewable technologies like
        wind/solar-pv when we still have no significant penetration of
        solar-thermal heating which is far cheaper?
      • Wayne
        ... So the answer is to ignore the experts and form our own unscientific opinions. ... Not if they are satellites!
        Message 3 of 30 , May 1, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          poitsplace wrote:
          > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Wayne <kb0syf@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          >>> The only measure of any valid theory or model is that it have the
          >>> ability to predict. We're outside the error bars...there's a reason
          >>>
          > we
          >
          >>> have the error bars. Guess what? The models are invalid.
          >>>
          >>>
          >> The lack of validity is only opinion. The climate is influenced by
          >>
          > many
          >
          >> factors. These factors affect weather, but it cannot be said with any
          >> certainty that they will not be valid for the climate over time.
          >>
          >
          > I think we can agree that as with weather models (which they essentially
          > are) the ability to predict NOW corresponds with their ability to
          > predict later. No now, no later.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >>> And the climate models IMMEDIATELY started diverging from reality.
          >>>
          > The
          >
          >>> problem with the models is really quite obvious. They looked at the
          >>> increases in temperature, looked at the expected warming from CO2
          >>>
          > and
          >
          >>> CO2 fell short. Then they came up with this silly, strong positive
          >>> feedback concept to explain the higher temperature increases. The
          >>> problem is that their assumption of MOST warming being from CO2 was
          >>> wrong. Less than half of the observed warming could have been from
          >>>
          > CO2.
          >
          >>> Half of it or more was just a natural cycle, continued high levels
          >>>
          > of
          >
          >>> solar activity, lack of volcanic activity, etc.
          >>>
          >>>
          >> Again, opinion.
          >>
          >
          > You're right, we should leave it to the experts...oops, they've failed.
          > Gee, if they'd just assumed the ACTUAL rate of increase along with the
          > normal warming/cooling cycle they'd be dead on right now. Oh well, not
          > my fault they didn't notice an obvious pattern.
          >

          So the answer is to ignore the experts and form our own unscientific
          opinions.

          >
          >
          >
          >> The digging of coal or drilling of oil also entails substantial
          >>
          > losses.
          >
          >> I have read that it requires the energy from one bbl of oil to produce
          >> another bbl of product.
          >>
          >
          > And this is already factored into costs. Technically the oil its self
          > is "free" just like sunlight. We just have to get it out...THAT is
          > where the cost comes, just like with other energy sources.
          >
          >
          >
          >> BTW if solar collectors are used, they are always on demand. Also fast
          >> or breeder reactors can supply much of our energy needs. I know your
          >> response will be that environmentalists will not allow that, but this
          >>
          > is
          >
          >> a problem of education. With the many problems with burning fossil,
          >>
          > even
          >
          >> neglecting global warming, it is very apparent that we must change how
          >> we use them and implement alternate energy as well as efficiencies and
          >> conservation.
          >>
          >
          > Solar cell are not "on demand". A weather system can take out power
          > production over entire nations for days at a time. They can't produce
          > power at night.
          >

          Not if they are satellites!

          > I'm all for breeder reactors and nuclear. We just need politicians to
          > grow a pair and tell the more rabbid environmentalists to shove their
          > "No coal, no oil, no nuclear" nonsense.
          >
          > I'm all for efficiency and conservation. I'm also all for proven, cheap
          > technologies. Solar-thermal for heating of homes, businesses and water,
          > for example is much more efficient than silicon solar cells, for
          > example...not to mention it uses less environmentally damaging
          > materials. Shouldn't we be getting all the low lying fruit first? Why
          > push economy destroying, high cost renewable technologies like
          > wind/solar-pv when we still have no significant penetration of
          > solar-thermal heating which is far cheaper?
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • poitsplace
          ... I find it difficult to make statements like the one above not if they are satellites even by mistake. You re basically suggesting that the solution to
          Message 4 of 30 , May 1, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Wayne <kb0syf@...> wrote:

            > > You're right, we should leave it to the
            > > experts...oops, they've failed. Gee, if
            > > they'd just assumed the ACTUAL rate of
            > > increase along with the normal warming/
            > > cooling cycle they'd be dead on right now.
            > > Oh well, not my fault they didn't notice
            > > an obvious pattern.

            > So the answer is to ignore the experts and
            > form our own unscientific opinions.


            > > Solar cell are not "on demand". A weather
            > > system can take out power production over
            > > entire nations for days at a time. They
            > > can't produce power at night.

            > Not if they are satellites!

            I find it difficult to make statements like the one above "not if they are satellites" even by mistake. You're basically suggesting that the solution to improved performance of a poorly performing alternative energy source...is to compound those performance problems by raising the costs a hundred times as much to launch that marginal system into space first. Epic fail man...EPIC fail.

            It's a fraction of the cost to just build a solar array three times the size and use the excess to build up MASSIVE hydrogen reserves in underground tanks that are basically just tunnels cut with boring machines. (BTW, a 3.5 x 3000 meter tunnel would hold enough hydrogen to fuel a 1gigawatt power plant for a day) That would cost about $25million. Such a configuration wastes half the power but at least is a viable and cheap way of storing it. Fuel cells are still too expensive to bother.

            As for the models, they're already "unscientific". They had to make numerous guesses of the values of critical aspects of a complex system so they could SUPPOSEDLY predict. It's great as a "what if the world really worked like this" scenario...but many of the feedbacks are not just the wrong value, they're using the wrong sign too. It's difficult to get more meaningless results than with the wrong signs on your data.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.