Other Voices on Global Warming

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
ExplodingToad	Other Voices on Global Warming	Lead	[-]
Posts: 287 (03/24/07 18:47:30) NASCAR househusband Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Tags : None The list is not mine but, I've added links where I could for each of these scientists who are voices of scepticism in the global warming debate. 1. Dr. William J.R. Alexander Professor Emeritus University of Pretoria 2. Dr. Claude Allegre Geophysicist Institute of Geophysics en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cla...l%C3%A8gre 3. Dr. August H. Auer Former Professor of Atmospheric Science University of Wyoming 4. Dr. Sallie L. Baliunas Astrophysicist Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics www.cirs.net/investigador...LIUNAS.htm 5. Dr. Timothy Ball Canadian Climatologist and Former Professor University of Winnipeg www.geocities.com/zacherle_hoag/tball www.canadafreepress.com/2...020507.htm www.nrsp.com/people-timothy-ball.html 6. Dr. Robert C. Balling, Jr. Climatologist Arizona State University 7. Dr. Jack Barrett Chemist and Spectroscopist Formerly with Imperial College London www.warwickhughes.com/pap...t_ee05.pdf 8. Dr. David Bellamy Horary Professor for Adult and Continuation Education Durham University 9. Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen Reader University of Hull www.hull.ac.uk/geog/staff/Boehmer.htm 10. Dr. Simon Brassell Geologist University of Indiana 11. Dr. Reid Bryson Meteorologist University of Wisconsin-Madison ccr.meteor.wisc.edu/bryson/bryson.html 12. Dr. Robert M. Carter Geologist James Cook University www-odp.tamu.edu/public/p...eg181.html ccr.aos.wisc.edu/contact/bryson_reid.php 13. Dr. Ian Castles Fellow Australian National University www.warwickhughes.com/climate/cool3.htm 14. Dr. Petr Chylek Physics and Atmospheric Science Adjunct Professor Dalhousie University fizz.phys.dal.ca/people/P...hylek.html 15 Dr. Ian D. Clark Earth Sciences Professor University of Ottawa 16. Dr. Paul Cooper Professor Emeritus Laurentian University 17. Dr. Richard S. Courtney Climate and Atmospheric Science Consultant Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 18. Dr. Chris de Freitas Associate Professor and Climate Scientist The University of Auckland www.sges.auckland.ac.nz/t.../index.htm www.nzherald.co.nz/catego...id=3516830 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_de_Freitas 19. Dr. Freeman J. Dyson Emeritus Professor of Physics Institute for Advanced Studies 20. Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser Physicist/Meteorologist Formerly with Livermore National Laboratory www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=9485 21. Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh Professor of Energy Conversion The Ohio State University 22. Dr. Christopher Essex Applied Mathematics Professor University of Western Ontario 23. Dr. Bill Gray Professor Emeritus Colorado State University typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray 24. Dr. Vincent Gray Expert Reviewer Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change www.john-daly.com/guests/regional.htm www.multi-science.co.uk/greendelu.htm www.warwickhughes.com/gray04/ 25. Dr. Keith D. Hage Meteorology Professor Emeritus University of Alberta 26. Dr. Howard Hayden Emeritus Professor of Physics University of Connecticut www.energyadvocate.com/book.htm 27. Dr. Douglas Hoyt Retired Scientist Raytheon Company www.warwickhughes.com/climate/cool6.htm 28. Dr. Andrei Illarionov Chief Economic Adviser Russian President Vladimir Putin www.policynetwork.net/mai...p?pr_id=52 29. Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski Physicist and Chairman Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/ 30. Dr. Ola Johanneseen Professor Nasen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center ec.europa.eu/research/fp6/p6/news/pdf/indo-eu-workshop_jointstament.pdf 31. Dr. Wibjorn Karlen Emeritus Professor Stockholm University 32. Dr. Aynsley Kellow Professor University of Tasmania 33. Dr. Madhav Khandekar Former Research Scientist Environment Canada 34. Hans H.J. LabDrohm Former Advisor to the Executive Board Clingendael Institute 35. Dr. Douglas Leahey meteorologist and air-quality consultant Calgary 36. Dr. Marcel Leroux Climatology Professor Emeritus University of Lyon djmotorsport.blogspot.com...-near.html 37. Dr. Dennis Lettenmaier Hydrology Professor University of Washington 38. Dr. Richard Lindzen Meteorologist Massachusetts Institute of Technology www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen www.heartland.org/Article...rtId=15893 39. Dr. Bjorn Lomborg Associate Statistics Professor University of Aarhus www.lomborg.com/ www.aie.org.au/pubs/lomberg.htm 40. Dr. Alister McFarquhar International Economist Downing College 41. Dr. Ross McKitrick Associate Professor University of Guelph www.takenbystorm.info/ 42. Dr. Patrick J. Michaels Professor of Environmental Sciences University of Virginia cato.org/people/michaels.html www.evsc.virginia.edu/fac...aels.shtml 43. Dr. Fred Michel Associate Professor Carleton University www.earthsci.carleton.ca/...ichel.html 44. Dr. M. R. Morgan Climate Consultant First Minister of Wales 45. Dr. Nils-Axel Morner Emeritus Professor Stockholm University 46. Dr. Tad Murty Adjunct Professor University of Ottawa 47. Dr. Garth W. Paltridge Director The Cooperative Research Centre for Antarctica and the Southern Ocean 48. Dr. Benny Peiser Professor of Social Anthropology Liverpool John Moores University www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/ 49. Dr. Al Pekarek Associate Professor of Geology St. Cloud State University 50. Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. Meteorologist Cooperative Institute of Research climate.umn.edu/doc/journ...pielke.htm oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070130114413-25161.pdf 51. Dr. Ian Plimer Professor University of Adelaide and University of Melbourne 52. Dr. Harry N.A. Priem Emeritus Professor Utrecht University www.warwickhughes.com/priem/hpriem.htm 53. Dr. Andreas Prokoph Adjunct Professor University of Ottawa palaeo-electronica.org/20...2/bio2.htm 54. Dr. Paul Reiter Professor Institut Pasteur www.cei.org/gencon/014,01520.cfm 55. Dr. Art Robinson Founder Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine www.policestateplanning.c...arming.htm 56. Dr. Arthur Rorsch Emeritus Professor of Molecular Genetics Leiden University www.john-daly.com/guests/rorsche.htm 57. Dr. Rob Scagel Principal Consultant Pacific Consultants 58. Dr. Gary Sharp Director Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study www.jennifermarohasy.com/...01416.html 59. Dr. Nir J. Shaviv Astrophysicist The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 60. Dr. Fred Singer Climatologist The Competitive Enterprise Institute www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/...inger.html en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer 61. Dr. Graham Smith Associate Professor University of Western Ontario 62. Dr. Roy Spencer Principal Research Scientist The University of Alabama www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4405 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer 63. Dr. Henrik Svensmark Climate Scientist Danish Space Research Institute www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...warm11.xml www.dsri.dk/~hsv/ 64. Dr. Gordon E. Swaters Applied Mathematics Professor University of Alberta 65. Dr. Hendrik Tennekes Retired Director of Research Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute 66. Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen Climate Change Consultant Geoscience Research and Investigations 67. Dr. G. Cornelis van Koten Environmental and Climate Change Professor University of Victoria 68. Dr. Jan Veizer Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences University of Ottawa www.ciar.ca/web/home.nsf/pages/home.0875 69. Dr. Boris Winterhalter Retired Senior Marine Researcher Geological Survey of Finland www.kolumbus.fi/boris.winterhalter/ www.pgi.gov.pl/rea/index....&Itemid=41 70. Dr. David E. Wojick Senior Editor "Electricity Daily" International Magazine www.john-daly.com/guests/...n_ipcc.htm
aspong	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#1	[-]
Posts: 705 (03/24/07 21:31:16) Ho Ho, it is to laugh Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	In a group of several thousand scientists, I would expect there to be at least this many dissenters. It also puts paid to the notion that dissenters are being silenced by the evil forces of consensus.
Florida Jeff	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#2	[-]
Posts: 2125 (03/25/07 00:37:13) Unindicted Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The are a lot of fields of science that are drawn from to study climate change, and, unfortunately, some people with expertise in only one or two become very narrow minded and do not recognize or even attempt to understand allied fields. Or, worse, they don't know what they don't know. If you look at the list of names, for example, of the creditable people posted (which is a fraction of the total names posted from what I can tell), Chris Essex up in U Western Ontario is a brilliant mathematician who is one of those who does have understanding of multiple and sometimes diverse fields of science and math. He has developed numerical solutions of complex mathematical models, as well as dynamic simulations of certain phenomena fed to him by scientists in other fields. I saw him at a confrence a few years ago, and have read several of his papers on boundary conditions and initial value concerns in the solution of certain categories of equations, and they are, in my opinion, brilliant. And critical in developing climate models. Chris has done interesting original work in non-equilibrium thermodynamics - very necessary in the study of climate change - but by no means all that is necessary. But, as creditable and knowledgeable as Chris is, I see gaps of information in the material that he presents simply because like all of us, he is a product of his background, including what he has had time to grow into from his original fields of study. We are all victims of that. And as unusually broadly based mathematically and scientifically - and with depth in all his areas - as Chris is, there are still areas that he has ignored in coming to his conclusions. The interesting thing about that list is that, except for Chris and perhaps one or two others, I don't think that it lists the really heavy hitters in the scientific community who are more sceptical of the relative influence of greenhouse effects as compared to stellar and natural phenomena in global climate change. I find it hysterical that whoever was trying to make a point didn't even know where to look! I have seen that in some posters here and it is knee-slapping hysterical. Jeff
MiltStar	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#3	[-]
Posts: 74 (03/25/07 08:53:35) Unindicted Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Global warming is a myth. The average American is almost two inches taller now than a century ago. The earth IS NOT getting warmer. People are just getting closer to the sun and it feels like it is warmer.
URBAN TROGLODYTE	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#4	[-]
Posts: 1778 (03/26/07 16:53:09) Fraud Prevention Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	@FL Jeff; "some people with expertise in only one or two become very narrow minded and do not recognize or even attempt to understand allied fields. Or, worse, they don't know what they don't know." Could this modus of discrediting the person's position not also apply to people who advocate in favor of "Global Warming" induced solely by anthropogenic emissions of infrared energy absorbing gases, that if the developed, and only developed, nations ceased to emit, would reverse itself? When you get beyond the social arguements, and religeous interpretation of observations in nature, where is the hard science to conclusively prove the above postualte to be valid?
aspong	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#5	[-]
Posts: 705 (03/26/07 19:07:08) Ho Ho, it is to laugh Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* anthropogenic emissions of infrared energy absorbing gases Plain english is ok to use too. Otherwise it makes you sound like you have to dress up your arguments to make them sound convincing. The more common expression is man made emissions of greenhouse gases. Oh well, whatever floats your boat. *Quote:* "Global Warming" induced solely See, now this is just the sort of fallacious argument that belies the opposing arguments. Only those who disagree with the GW conclusions are couching it in terms of man being solely responsible. If you have to lie about your opponents then you mustn't have a very good argument on your own side. Clever words and false statements is no way to be right about anything.
URBAN TROGLODYTE	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#6	[-]
Posts: 1778 (03/27/07 01:43:40) Fraud Prevention Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	@aspong; " Only those who disagree with the GW conclusions are couching it in terms of man being solely responsible. If you have to lie about your opponents then you mustn't have a very good argument on your own side. " It's not a question of lying. The proponents of this are demanding that governments take political action. It is, by virtue of that fact, a political debate. Politicians don't talk in the fuzzy language of science, which is riddled with uncertainty. The problem is "global warming", and people like Al Gore, attribute it solely to man. That is not me lying, see the movie. Science no way comes near supporting the political solution proposed. If a portion of the alleged "global warming" is in fact a natural occurrence, then the curative degree of the proposed political actions are subject to scrutiny as a natural question, what is natural what is man made is obvious, and a political solution cannot solve a natural phenomenom. The "cure", proponents tout for global warming is reducing man made "greenhouse gas" emissions, yet no definite statement is ever made with just how much of the "global warming" the proposed cuts will give. Absent this knowledge, and the gravity this is couched in, the policical arena presumes adopting the solutions will cure the problem, and for that to work, the problem must be solely man made.
Florida Jeff	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#7	[-]
Posts: 2125 (03/27/07 03:34:51) Unindicted Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	UT, Nope again. Look at it this way. Say you are standing in the middle of a tunnel in which there are two trains coming at you, one from each end. You control one train. And God controls the other train. Just because you don't know if God is going to allow the train He controls to make hamburger meet out of you, or if he is going to stop the train in time, there is no reason for you to decide not to stop the second train. It is clear that human endeavor has pumped an inordinate amount of greenhouse gases (and other pollutants) into the atmosphere at an ever accelerating pace in the last century. It is clear what effect, qualitatively, that thas on climate. The quantitative models vary in magnitude, but not at all in direction. There is no reason not to slow down that train. Jeff
aspong	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#8	[-]
Posts: 705 (03/27/07 10:01:39) Ho Ho, it is to laugh Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* and people like Al Gore, attribute it solely to man Wrong again. They attribute it primarily to man, not solely. As for natural causes being a proportion of the problem, that's not the way to look at it either. Imagine it takes 9 pounds to squeeze the GW trigger. Nature's forces contributed 7 to 8 pounds but man provided the 1 or 2 pounds that actually fired the gun. It's not a foolproof analogy, but surely you get the idea.
Downpuppy	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#9	[-]
Posts: 5450 (03/27/07 20:58:04) Heh, heh...Beavis? Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	We may already be so deep into postive feedback territory that cause is meaningless.
URBAN TROGLODYTE	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#10	[-]
Posts: 1778 (03/28/07 20:36:59) Fraud Prevention Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	@FL Jeff; "Look at it this way. Say you are standing in the middle of a tunnel in which there are two trains coming at you, one from each end. You control one train. And God controls the other train." Presuming equal force contributions requires conclusive attribution to specific forcings and their origins, which the actual science readilly acknowledgs it is grossly deficient in. Politicians on the other hand, have no such problem. "It is clear what effect, qualitatively, that thas on climate." Maybe to you. If you ever read any of this "scientific" literature, it is so well caveated with "mights", "coulds", etc. to render it utterly meaningless in establishing a qualitative basis for anything. The one observation I have made is that the more definite a piece is in its conclusions, likely the farther it is away from the science. "There is no reason not to slow down that train." That of course presumes there's no cost to slowing down that train. Here, this is not the case. Not one proponent of the "global warming" hypothesis, particularly the ones in the political sphere who profess to care the most, are willing to go on record and state the obvious. In order to reduce "greenhouse gas" emissions, we have to stop using fossil fuels. This will require huge sacrifices by the public, which they simply aren't willing to be honest about, instead draping themselves in esoteric concepts like "alternative energy", "hydrogen" (which takes energy to produces), "renewable energy", etc. which have not even the slightest chance of producing enough energy to replace even a small fraction of what is consumed from fossil fuels. The hypocrisy of proposing painless solutions to a problem who's delinieated solution is inherently painful is staggering. The solution to your problem is inherently simple if you buy the "global warming" cause by greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels hypothesis. Stop using fossil fuels. Your ability to act on what you believe is in no way constrained by my rejection of your religeon, and my concurrent unwillingness to do likewise.
URBAN TROGLODYTE	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#11	[-]
Posts: 1778 (03/28/07 20:51:36) Fraud Prevention Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	@aspong; "As for natural causes being a proportion of the problem, that's not the way to look at it either." Only if thoroughly immersed in "global warming" religeon an desperate not to have your friends think you a non-believer. Otherwise, portioning anything touted to be a problem man contributes to would necessitate assessing the role man plays, the cost of changing man's behavior, and how signficant the outcome would be were man to change his behavior. At present, the "global warming" attributable to human emissions issue presents us with a golden opportunity to ruin our economies, revert to the bronze age and in the process kill millions if not billions in doing so, and achieve virtually nothing. "It's not a foolproof analogy, but surely you get the idea." I suppose you've never heard of an inverse geometric phenomena, which the absorption of infrared energy and its re-radiation's contribution to measured surface temperatures is. The analogy you put up is invalid. The "greenhouse" effect is cumulative. There is no "trigger". It is also highly inverse geometric, meaning the incremental contributions have less and less effect on increasing measured temperatures, necessitating scenarios that defy reality and conflict with expected constraints in future energy production to sustain even a modest warming above present levels.
aspong	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#12	[-]
Posts: 705 (03/28/07 22:04:48) Ho Ho, it is to laugh Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* Only if thoroughly immersed in "global warming" religeon an desperate not to have your friends think you a non-believer. Oh what fun. At my age you're either already solid with your friends or don't give a flying frig anymore. I left my teen insecurities behind a lonnnnnng time ago. But thanks for making me feel young again. But I love how people fall back on the "religion" thang to try to make GW, and thousands of scientists from all sorts of cultures and backgrounds out to be brainless fools. *Quote:* Otherwise, portioning anything touted to be a problem man contributes to would necessitate assessing the role man plays Did you do that on purpose or do you always struggle to understand things? The glass was already 3/4 full. We didn't 3/4 fill the glass, but we did make it overflow. That's what the science says. Nature may have put a bail of straw on the camel's back, but ours is the last straw, not nature. But go ahead and blame nature if it makes your religion feel any better. *Quote:* At present, the "global warming" attributable to human emissions issue presents us with a golden opportunity to ruin our economies Says who? Sounds like ignorant religious panic mongering to me. You obviously haven't been anywhere within a mile the Stern Review, which demonstrates that a tiny bit of effort now will save big in economic terms later. Stern estimates 1% of GDP is enough. In stark contrast to your frightened state over ruined economies, GW actually provides Capitalist opportunities in providing technology and other remedies. There's a big capitalist boon in this. *Quote:* revert to the bronze age and in the process kill millions if not billions in doing so, and achieve virtually nothing. Now you really are sounding religious, "repent now or face doom". Do yourself a favour and look up the Stern Review. You'll find that far from being a bad thing, the economics of GW can actually be quite profitable. *Quote:* The analogy you put up is invalid. The "greenhouse" effect is cumulative. There is no "trigger". Cumulative? Ok, so the planet just grows an atmosphere that never depletes? No trigger? How about a point at which the runaway positive feedback kicks in? Come on. Of course there are triggers. It's just not something that happens overnight. "Inverse geometric phenomena"? Oh pleeeeze. Get your head out of the lexicon. You won't find the facts there, just words that can frighten you or that you can use to pretend you actually know something.
Florida Jeff	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#13	[-]
Posts: 2125 (03/28/07 22:17:15) Unindicted Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	UT, Wrong again. Sorry you missed the results of the billions spent on clean coal technology development in the last 30 years which is bearing fruit. Look up, for example, Integrated Gasification Combined Cycles (IGCC), or Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion (PFBC). Or even plain on Fluidized Bed Combustion. Look up hypercritical steam units. These are only a few of a plethora of technological weapons being used to reduce emissions as well as increase thermodynamic efficiency, which, as you know, has the same effect. There are scores of others, but these are the ones that I am most familiar with. To date, there are only 7 or so IGCC plants in North America. Currently, there are bids flying out the door for them. See AEP.com, for example. Insofar as non-fossil fuels, the wind turbine factories of the behemouths of the industry - General Electric and Siemens - are booked for years to come. As are the smaller manufacturers. I wouldn't knock wind power. They could make each one now produce in the 1-5 mW range, if you have been following the developments. I just wouldn't plan on having 50% of our power generated by it in my lifetime. But a heck of a lot more than now, apparently. Of course, as fossil units become far far more efficient and simultaneously utilization of clean coal technologies blossoms, the nuclear industry has gained traction again. There are a few dozen upgrades of older plants on the horizon, and new orders have been taken globally. But you mentioned to stop using fossil fuels. Sorry. That is not necessary to sharply and meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Remember, when you couldn't spell thermodynamics, coal power plant efficiencies were 30% tops. IGCC cycles are twice that, PLUS, they have the added advantage of sharply reduced gaseous emissions per Btu because of the technology utilized in the gasifier and auxiliary systems. Do look it up. Combined with the growth again of nuclear power and of the renewable sources, and thus the reduced total percent of the picture that fossil fuels play, and you can see that your scenario of needing to abruptly stop use of fossil fuels is kind of amateurish. You belong in Greenpeace. There is no question that coal will be slowly archived as a fuel, as will fossil fuels for transportation, over the next century (see notes on wind power and nuclear power above). However, the burning of these fossil fuels over the next century will be far cleaner than ever before, and clean enough to make a meaningful difference. Your entire hypothesis that fossil fuels have to be eliminated in the energy mix to meaningfully alleviate greenhouse gas effects is simply untrue. But as usual, technology will solve all problems, and I suspect that in 2107, there will be a far different mix of fuel sources on the energy grid and on the roads. Jeff
Luck of the Draw	Global.....	#14	[-]
Posts: 2213 (03/28/07 23:07:03) Proto-imperialist Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Birds and animals maybe one up on us. Even they know enuff not to "soil" their own nests.
URBAN TROGLODYTE	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#15	[-]
Posts: 1778 (03/29/07 23:16:37) Fraud Prevention Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	@aspong; ""Inverse geometric phenomena"? Oh pleeeeze." Well, it is. The incremental rise in temperature is inversly geometrically proportional to the incremental concentration of greenhouse gases added. Or so the model makers say. "Of course there are triggers." If you add one drop of water to the ocean, you have risen sea level. By dropping any water in the ocean, you have triggered a sea level rise. Such is the same with additional concentrations of "greenhouse gases", if you believe the theory of the elevated greenhouse effect. Any emissions by man create an incremental rise in temperature that would not occur had man not emitted the noxious emission. So what subjective measure of temperature rise attributable to manmade emissions that no one but you knows about isn't called "global warming"?
URBAN TROGLODYTE	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#16	[-]
Posts: 1778 (03/29/07 23:57:08) Fraud Prevention Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	@FL Jeff; "Wrong again." About what? "There are scores of others, but these are the ones that I am most familiar with." Increased efficiency doesn't even keep us at current concentrations if you follow the "business as usual" scenario driving the IPCC models. Emissions are predicted to double. And these two technologies don't affect motor fuels, which are an even faster growing emission source of GHG's. To "reverse" global warming, according to the IPCC's own estimates, even greater reductions to CO2 emissions are needed than what are called for in Kyoto, as full implementation and compliance with Kyoto is predicted to lower average mean global temperatures by .01 C, which wouldn't make a dent in "global warming". "General Electric and Siemens - are booked for years to come" Well, that sort of means wind power is pretty much already tapped as a possible solution to "global warming". So why offer something as a solution to a problem that is already being done. "the nuclear industry has gained traction again" This is the strangest thing. The nuclear industry is the one source with potential to significantly reduce fossil fuel consumption. The same people who clamor about "global warming", nuked the nuke industry. Nuclear power is dead as a solution to "global warming". Even worse, the "greens" are making European countries turn down nuke plants leaving the power industry there little choice but to replace them with coal fired units. "when you couldn't spell thermodynamics" fire a shot accross my bow...and you'll whine incessantly if I do likewise. You might even bang your rattler on the table. Tell you what. If you want civil discourse, here's a friggin hint...try being civil. "There is no question that coal will be slowly archived as a fuel, as will fossil fuels for transportation, over the next century (see notes on wind power and nuclear power above)." Somehow when I see these documentaries produced by the Canadian Film Board, and they show the glaciers melting, the Inuit losing their way of life, hitting the panic button on the halt of the thermohaline cycle, I don't surmise they're intending for us to solve this problem in the next century. It is as inevitable as the fact that we don't use whale oil and candles for lighting that economics and scarcity of resources will force radical changes in energy markets over the next century. But that is not what the "global warming" issue intends to allow. It is a problem that its proponents insist must be solved now (see an inconvenient truth), must be solved by the governments, particularly those of developed nations, by forcing societies to limit emissions of GHG's. "Your entire hypothesis that fossil fuels have to be eliminated in the energy mix to meaningfully alleviate greenhouse gas effects is simply untrue. " It's not my hypothesis, it's a fact. Adding any incremental quantity of GHG's to the atmospher, increases their concentration in the atmosphere, and raises the temperature above what it would be if they were not there. Thus, any emissions cause "global warming". To eliminate "global warming" caused by manmade emissions necessitates elimination of the consumption of these fuels. So if you say that total elimination of fossil fuels is not required, then by default you are stating that there is an acceptable amount of "global warming". A strange arguement. I guess the polar bear won't have to swim as far to avoid drowing. The glacier won't retreat as much. But the economic consequences don't depend on total elimination of fossil fuel consumption. Following the IPCC's recommendations will have the same effect. The IPCC's own simulations show that full implementation of a global cap on emissions at 1990 levels, which we are 17 years past, and corresponding reductions going forward, have virtually no effect on modeled rise in temperatures. And the proponents of the global warming hypothesis such as Hansen are calling for even deeper cuts in emissions mandated through government caps on emissions. Emissions caps have exactly the same effect on energy markets as shortages, they force lower consumption. Since consumption is constrained, what was once plentiful is now scarce, and consequently more valuable. That means an unavoidable consequence of constraining GHG outputs is rising energy prices. To constrain consumption, the government essentially has to reduce fuel supplies available for sale to use in motor vehicles today to the amount of gasoline sold in 1990. Even minor interruptons in fuel supplies cause uncertainty and prices to spike, as happened in the wake of Katrina and Rita. These were temporary and miniscule constraints in view of the size of the market, but had dramatic influence on price. What do you think, then, since your postulating what I say is untrue, would be the effect on gas prices if the government mandated that the nations drivers only had as much gasoline as was sold in 1990 was available at the pumps today?
aspong	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#17	[-]
Posts: 705 (03/30/07 03:28:08) Ho Ho, it is to laugh Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	UT, do you regret having a user name in all CAPITALS?
URBAN TROGLODYTE	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#18	[-]
Posts: 1778 (03/30/07 22:17:36) Fraud Prevention Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	@ASPONG: NOT AT ALL. HAVING AN UNFLINCHING FAITH IN TECHNOLOGY, I KNEW THE "CAPS LOCK" KEY WOULD SOON BE INVENTED.
Florida Jeff	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#19	[-]
Posts: 2125 (03/30/07 23:11:14) Unindicted Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	UT, You didn't do your homework, again. And I am rather surprised. I advised that there are two general ways to reduce emissions, of which one of them is to improve cycle or thermodynamic efficieny. You somehow read my post to mean that reduction in efficiency was the only means. The second general method, of course, is with various clean coal technologies, such as coal gasification. And when a clean coal technology is used in a more efficient cycle, you get a powerful combination. I am a big fan of IGCC plants. As far as personal attacks, I am pretty sure that you couldn't spell 'thermodynamics ' in the 1950's. If you consider that to be a personal attack, I suggest that you look up the work "paranoid", and perhaps also the idiomatic expression, "sheesh". Jeff
aspong	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#20	[-]
Posts: 705 (03/31/07 03:55:44) Ho Ho, it is to laugh Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* By dropping any water in the ocean, you have triggered a sea level rise. If all you see in science is levels and not events then your perspective is severely limited. Yes there are circumstances where things merely change level. But there are also trigger moments when exceeding a level or a combination of movements triggers an avalanch response. Both conditions are evident in climate change. If you're trying to say that climate only changes in levels and there are no trigger events, then your position is indeed ignorant. What is rain? It is a trigger event. Saturation reaches a point where it can no longer hold the moisture a mile above the earth and suddenly the conditions change radically. We see trigger events in nature all the time. It is foolishness to believe otherwise, and you clearly demonstrate your ignorance by insisting upon it.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Other Voices on Global Warming

Other Voices on Global Warming

Quick Reply