Global warming

[KimB]

One thing I do feel concern about though is the fact that AGW is being linked to any and all weather related natural disasters. On the one hand you have people saying that the snow outside peoples windows is just weather then on the other you have people using a somewhat tenuous link, such as in the case of the Australia floods to push their AGW agenda when the causal relationship simply doesn't support it. In the case of Australia the floods aren't as bad as recent historical floods and yet people are still waving the 'you burned coal I hope you drown in the coming floods' vitriol.

Im just saying the AGW crew aren't doing themselves any favours by remaining silent on these natural disasters when the tenuous link is being proposed.

Well, the thing is, AGW tends to amplify basically every sort of weather-related natural disaster. It makes storms in general stronger (including hurricanes and snowstorms). It makes droughts more common/severe, because the water that does fall is more concentrated in storms than spread out.

Now, it is fundamentally impossible to point at a specific event and say that was caused by AGW, but we can say it makes some things worse on average (hurricanes), and some things more frequent (droughts, fires).

 

[corduroygt]

Then why don't you publish your research in a peer reviewed journal? Hell, just publish a pre-print.

Chalnoth threw an open challenge to xxx to point out the biggest scientific flaw in AGW. You know what happened? He ran away. Would you like to take up that challenge, or would you like to just repeat bs ad nauseam without any scientific proof?

That was just a mistype, I meant the say "I'm not saying AGW is debunked" because I don't believe that we can accurately determine the cause of global warming to be of man made sources. All science gives us is temperature data and models on how CO2 might affect temperature with some degree of correlation. Those models are insufficient IMHO.

In any case, I do understand the value of conserving energy and getting off fossil fuels, but nothing short of nuclear energy and a magical battery can replace it yet so far, and we have neither. I am not switching to wind power.

 

[Sxotty]

In any case, I do understand the value of conserving energy and getting off fossil fuels, but nothing short of nuclear energy and a magical battery can replace it yet so far, and we have neither. I am not switching to wind power.

I am not sure what a "magic battery" is, but I am pretty sure we do produce energy from nuclear power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#History

Might want to look at that first

 

[eastmen]

Well, the thing is, AGW tends to amplify basically every sort of weather-related natural disaster. It makes storms in general stronger (including hurricanes and snowstorms). It makes droughts more common/severe, because the water that does fall is more concentrated in storms than spread out.

Now, it is fundamentally impossible to point at a specific event and say that was caused by AGW, but we can say it makes some things worse on average (hurricanes), and some things more frequent (droughts, fires).

So let me ask what happens when hurricanes become weaker on average and things become less frequent like droughts and fires.

I ask because we have periods naturaly when things happen more often and are stronger than they were.


Here in NJ we had a huge winter storm in 1996 that droped over 24inches of snow. This year we had another one that droped over 24 inches. Thats what 14 years give or take a few months. In between that we had winters with a few inches the whole season and some like 2003 that gave us 18 inches of snow.

Now if next year we get another 24inch snow storm is that global warming ? What if after that snow storm we don't get one again for 15 years ?

 

[Grall]

Easty, the amount of alledged snowfall (mean average across the whole state, in your grandmom's back yard, what?) you get in new jersey any one single year doesn't really factor in all that heavily in GLOBAL climate.

You do get this, don't you?

Maybe you should check up on the differences between weather and climate.

 

[corduroygt]

I am not sure what a "magic battery" is, but I am pretty sure we do produce energy from nuclear power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#History

Might want to look at that first

We don't really have it when any new plants get blocked by stupid lawsuits and environmental activists or groups like Greenpeace. If they don't succeed at preventing plants from being built, they make the litigation so expensive that it doesn't make sense to build them anymore. I mean look at what these lunatics are saying:

Despite what the nuclear industry tells us, building enough nuclear power stations to make a meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would cost trillions of dollars, create tens of thousands of tons of lethal high-level radioactive waste, contribute to further proliferation of nuclear weapons materials, and result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade.

When it's people like this, whom I hate with every cell in my body, who are pushing the AGW agenda, it's neutral to form a strong dislike towards it as well.

A magic battery is an energy storage device with the charging/discharging characteristics of a capacitor while having the energy density of a lithium ion battery, while not being made out of rare earth metals and costing cheap.

 

[Sxotty]

We don't really have it when any new plants get blocked by stupid lawsuits and environmental activists or groups like Greenpeace. If they don't succeed at preventing plants from being built, they make the litigation so expensive that it doesn't make sense to build them anymore. I mean look at what these lunatics are saying:



When it's people like this, whom I hate with every cell in my body, who are pushing the AGW agenda, it's neutral to form a strong dislike towards it as well.

A magic battery is an energy storage device with the charging/discharging characteristics of a capacitor while having the energy density of a lithium ion battery, while not being made out of rare earth metals and costing cheap.

Um coal is facing a harder time legally than nuclear. Nuclear just can't get financed. It is truly expensive up front. So are most things though if we want to change.

As to the magic battery, well they have everything but the last part

 

[gamervivek]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/a-brave-new-world-of-fossil-fuels-on-demand/article1871149/

In September, a privately held and highly secretive U.S. biotech company named Joule Unlimited received a patent for “a proprietary organism” – a genetically adapted E. coli bacterium – that feeds solely on carbon dioxide and excretes liquid hydrocarbons: diesel fuel, jet fuel and gasoline.

 

[corduroygt]

Um coal is facing a harder time legally than nuclear. Nuclear just can't get financed. It is truly expensive up front. So are most things though if we want to change.

Well, the government should step up with the financing, financing our energy independence makes much more sense than financing bad underwriting by AIG.
I'm also pretty sure Nuclear needs less capital per MW compared to wind and solar.

As to the magic battery, well they have everything but the last part

Not really, even the best supercaps can't touch lithium ion cells on energy density, and they use rare earth metals and are still expensive.

 

[eastmen]

Easty, the amount of alledged snowfall (mean average across the whole state, in your grandmom's back yard, what?) you get in new jersey any one single year doesn't really factor in all that heavily in GLOBAL climate.

You do get this, don't you?

Maybe you should check up on the differences between weather and climate.

I'm talking about documented snow fall across the state from multiple reporting agencys.

The post was about certian things happening more often or intense , what happens when they are no longer happening more often or intensely as previous.

 

[Squilliam]

Well, the thing is, AGW tends to amplify basically every sort of weather-related natural disaster. It makes storms in general stronger (including hurricanes and snowstorms). It makes droughts more common/severe, because the water that does fall is more concentrated in storms than spread out.

Now, it is fundamentally impossible to point at a specific event and say that was caused by AGW, but we can say it makes some things worse on average (hurricanes), and some things more frequent (droughts, fires).

However it sort of puts AGW 'feelers' out there, and they are easy to disprove which in the mind of most people also discredits AGW theory if and when they are infact discredited. It is better that things like that aren't spread around.

The "AGW crew" - which isn't one in reality since it's not a world-wide coordinated conspiracy of some sort* - knows there's not a direct causality link between AGW and a specific natural disaster.

Those that are trumping up stuff like that are media, who do it because they love big headlines that sell copies of their product - and ignorant people who don't understand what they're talking about.

* = expressions like "AGW crew" insinuate that scientists and other people are working in an underhanded, ZOG-like fashion to promote their agenda. That's conspiracist claptrap, and unless you have any proof that such is going on, I suggest you avoid expressing yourself in such a way if you want to be taken seriously. K?

Hey! Aren't we all amongst friends here? (for the most part). I wasn't being negative I was raising an issue with how AGW theory was being presented. Please lighten up or your negativity might cause the sun to enter into an even deeper solar minimum which will light up the happiness board of every AGW denier from here to the Arctic.

 

[Sxotty]

Well, the government should step up with the financing, financing our energy independence makes much more sense than financing bad underwriting by AIG.
I'm also pretty sure Nuclear needs less capital per MW compared to wind and solar.


Not really, even the best supercaps can't touch lithium ion cells on energy density, and they use rare earth metals and are still expensive.

The government already did. If the industry was certain we would have a co2 tax then they would invest in nuclear again. Otherwise why bother?

And the last part I was referring to lithium batteries, so you have it backward. We have ones that don't use rare earth metals and are awesome, but they are expensive.

 

[corduroygt]

And the last part I was referring to lithium batteries, so you have it backward. We have ones that don't use rare earth metals and are awesome, but they are expensive.

We don't need a CO2 tax, especially since China/India won't have one. Fossil fuels are getting expensive which makes Nuclear more viable.

There are Li-ion batteries that can be fully recharged in 5 minutes or less? AFAIK the only electric storage devices that can be charged/discharged that fast are capacitors, and they lack the energy density of batteries.

 

[KimB]

However it sort of puts AGW 'feelers' out there, and they are easy to disprove which in the mind of most people also discredits AGW theory if and when they are infact discredited. It is better that things like that aren't spread around.

What are you talking about? The increase in severity of storms is something rather definitive that has been measured.

 

[KimB]

We don't need a CO2 tax, especially since China/India won't have one.

Well, that's a non-starter argument if ever I heard one. You just need tariffs to balance their lack of a CO2 tax. And if the US gets a CO2 tax, it dramatically increases its ability to pressure China and India to also implement similar taxes.

There are Li-ion batteries that can be fully recharged in 5 minutes or less? AFAIK the only electric storage devices that can be charged/discharged that fast are capacitors, and they lack the energy density of batteries.

What's your point?

 

[rpg.314]

That was just a mistype, I meant the say "I'm not saying AGW is debunked"

Good.

because I don't believe that we can accurately determine the cause of global warming to be of man made sources.

Based on what scientific evidence?

All science gives us is temperature data and models on how CO2 might affect temperature with some degree of correlation.Those models are insufficient IMHO.

Again, based on what scientific evidence?

 

[corduroygt]

Well, that's a non-starter argument if ever I heard one. You just need tariffs to balance their lack of a CO2 tax. And if the US gets a CO2 tax, it dramatically increases its ability to pressure China and India to also implement similar taxes.

US won't get a CO2 tax, you can count on that. If we put tariffs on Chinese, maybe they'd just stop buying bonds and devalue the US Dollar overnight. Energy costs solved right away since fossil fuels would automatically become more expensive, and we didn't have to tax anything.

What's your point?

We still need fossil fuels for transportation even if we could produce electricity very cheaply, since there's no good way to store it. Electric cars will never be ready until there's a way for a 5 minute recharge.

 

[rpg.314]

Well, that's a non-starter argument if ever I heard one. You just need tariffs to balance their lack of a CO2 tax. And if the US gets a CO2 tax, it dramatically increases its ability to pressure China and India to also implement similar taxes.

Seconded. ALL of us need a carbon tax.

 

[corduroygt]

Based on what scientific evidence?
Again, based on what scientific evidence?

In science you need evidence to prove that AGW exists, you don't need evidence to disprove it.

The evidence that human made CO2 is causing AGW is insufficient. Too many fudging around with variables and not having a control group for experiments since we don't have a second Earth casts a lot of doubt on the results of such studies. It's not lab tested, so I just don't think what climate scientists find is as valid as what the CERN people find, or what drug testing on animals finds, etc...

 

[corduroygt]

Seconded. ALL of us need a carbon tax.

You can start by stopping breathing, or someone will make you when you try to pass that tax.