Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@parados,

parados wrote:

The irony is that you don't know the difference.

No irony is involved in geography - YOU, Pap etc, DO NOT know the difference between SWEDEN and NORWAY.

Corollary 1, you also do not know the difference between SCIENCE and POLITICS.

Corollary 2, you also know nothing about the Swedish Academy of Sciences (awarding the REAL Nobel prizes) and the Norwegian parliament (awarding fake-o non-scientific, politicized prizes, only named after the late Alfred Nobel because he threw some money in those politicians' direction).

Read and educate yourself, Papardello, or whatever you said your name was, Smile

1 Reply

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/090130beelertoon_c20090130034831.jpg

0 Replies

ll the news media, when it was announced in 2007 , stated that Gore SHARED the Nobel Peace Prize with the 2500 or so, IPCC scientists. Well, Singer was one of these . The fact that hes an anthropogenic ckimate change skeptic is no reason to try to smear a heavily credentialed and experienced climate scientist who had been on the cutting edge in the development of weather satellites and the collection of climate data .

The link parados provided is a rather poor example of the peer review process.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Same question to you, Farmerman: why can't we just use the gas (until we can build more nuclear plants, is my hope) to operate power plants, home heating, other power requirements, and just drive electric cars?

aybe georgeob can verify this but Im aware of a number of combined power plants run b y nat gas. Some of my guys did a lot of the geotech for siting a large (850 megawatt) gas fired unit along the Susquehanna. The preence of gas and water made for an ideal location for a combined ystem plant. Gas plants are amazingly more compact, and environmentally acceptable with a very small total footprint wrt soil, water, and air. I like em just for their "neato" factor. One that we worked on was located next to a forst preserve and , with the berms and landscape design, was actually quite attractive. Its been in ops for about 3 yearsa nd is growing into a final eco- succession look.

I believe such plants today produce about 16% of our total electrical output. Indeed they constitute the dominant fraction of the new generating capacity brought online during the past 15 or so years. They are easy to site for the reasons farmerman gave; the initial capital cost is low; environmental permitting issues are relatively simple; operating costs are low; they can be started up and shut down to meet varying demand with relative ease; and the public seems to believe they are a particularly clean source of power - even though the differences between them and a coal fired plants is not great. Even with an exchaust gas power recovery system gas turbines are not as thermodynamically efficient as a steam plant with reheat.

I think the key issue here is that the natural gas could be better used to power conventionally designed vehicles and thereby displace expensively imported petroleum. This becomes particularly significant given the new abundance of domestic gas reserves farmerman has described. While there are many alternative ways to generate electrical power, there are few sources of energy as ubiquitous and compact as gasoline and natural gas for fuelling our vehicular transport system with existing technology.

Boone Pickens' plan was to do this by replacing the natural gas used for electrical power generation with wind power. My version would be to build new nuclear power plants. Nuclear generation is much cheaper than wind power, and fisssion works 24/7 all year, while the wind only blows sometimes.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

No irony is involved in geography - YOU, Pap etc, DO NOT know the difference between SWEDEN and NORWAY.

Corollary 1, you also do not know the difference between SCIENCE and POLITICS.

Corollary 2, you also know nothing about the Swedish Academy of Sciences (awarding the REAL Nobel prizes) and the Norwegian parliament (awarding fake-o non-scientific, politicized prizes, only named after the late Alfred Nobel because he threw some money in those politicians' direction).

Read and educate yourself, Papardello, or whatever you said your name was,

From the Frequently Asked Questions page on www.nobelprize.org, concerning the Nobel Peace Prize:

Quote:

Why is the Nobel Peace Prize awarded in Oslo and all the other Nobel Prizes in Stockholm?

Alfred Nobel left no explanation as to why the prize for peace was to be awarded by a Norwegian committee while the other four prizes were to be handled by Swedish committees. In the will he wrote:

"The prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiology or medical works by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm, and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting."

As for the "real" Nobel Prizes versus "fake-o non-scientific, politicized prizes, only named after the late Alfred Nobel because he threw some money in those politicians' direction":

Quote:

The prizes, as designated in the Will of Alfred Nobel, are in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and peace. Only once during these years has a prize been added " a Memorial Prize " the Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, donated by the Bank of Sweden to celebrate its tercentenary in 1968. The Board of Directors later decided to keep the original five prizes intact and not to permit new additions.

There you go.

Physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and peace are the original Nobel Prizes. Economic Sciences is your fake-o non-scientific, politicized prize.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

You may be right, Mr. Farmerman, and then again, you may not be!

Dr. Fred Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project revealed that the IPCC was distributing claims in a Summary for Policymakers that were not supported in either the underlying report allegedly being summarized in a later supplement. This allegation revealed just how the Summary was used to distort the work done by the IPCC. Dr. Frederick Seitz, a leading figure in America's scientific establishment wrote the following in a n op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.

"...this report(the Summary) is not what it appears to be--it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American Scientific Community, including service as the President of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report"

Source-Wall Street Journal-June 12, 1996--"A Major Deception on Global Warming"

It is clear that, according to Dr. Seitz, the political commisars changed the science into the "summary" thereby falsifying the results.

But, there is an even more disturbing comment from a member of the IPCC.

When the "New Scientist" asked about the change in language in the new summary, the spokesman for the UN Environment Program, Tim Higham, responded very honestly---'THERE WAS NO NEW SCIENCE, BUT THE SCIENTISTS WANTED TO PRESENT A CLEAR AND STRONG MESSAGE TO POLICY MAKERS"

source--New Scientist-
http://archive.newscientist.com/archive.jsp?id=22750300

0 Replies

I got this in my e-mail tonight and checked it out to make sure it was legit; i.e. a real article written by the person to which it was attributed. I wondered what you engineering and math gurus think about this? The meat of the piece:

Quote:

Al Gore has claimed, repeatedly, that if we were to build a 90-mile by 90-mile solar-panel facility in the Southwest desert, we would have enough electricity to power the entire United States. The claim is fantastic. If only we cared enough about the environment to build enough solar panels, then the world would be saved and power would be free! Al Gore is a masterful politician, which is to say he is a complete liar.

(Warren) Meyer, who worked as an engineer for Exxon and an analyst with McKinsey, decided to run the actual numbers.

I assumed a third of the 8,100 square miles would be dead space between the panels, roads, transformers, access paths, etc. I assumed you put the installation in the best solar sites in the southwest, which yield on average about 6 peak-sun-hour-equivalents a day. I assumed a 20% loss in conversions and transformers. So 8,100 sq miles x 2/3 x 200 watt/12sq ft x 6 hours x 365 days x 80% (with necessary unit conversions thrown in) yields 4.08 billion Megawatt-Hours of electricity, which is about exactly our current US generating capacity. (Way to go! Al got a number right!).

But there's a significant catch. (Remember the Second Law of Thermodynamics...)

This does not cover elimination of fossil fuels in the transportation sector. And it does not address the problem of how you store this power at night, which of course is a catastrophic problem for the idea... Using the assumptions above and assuming that installation costs (with land acquisition, transformers, inverters, roads, mounting, installation, etc) is as much again as the panel costs themselves, the total installation would cost just under $21 trillion dollars. This is orders of magnitude [more than 10 times] more than a nuclear program of the same size would cost. And presupposes the environmentalists would let you cover 5 million acres of desert with metal and silicon.

Solar power isn't the answer to our country's energy needs " and it never will be.

While I don't know (and can't know) how long the current solar mania will last, I am convinced with oil selling for less than $50 a barrel again and with the economics of solar energy more and more apparent, we're near at least a short-term peak in the popularity of solar stocks. Most will fall 50%-75% in the next year or two.
http://www.dailywealth.com/archive/2009/jan/2009_jan_17.asp

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

....The link parados provided is a rather poor example of the peer review process.

Old Europe - it would save everybody time if you would stick to the point and avoid unnecessary digressions, especially of the lengthy variety.

Read what Farmerman said, since you didn't understand what I said.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

This E-mail corroberates material found in S. Fred Singer's wonderful book-

"Unstoppable Global Warming--Every 1,500 years"

On. P. 211, Dr. Singer writes:

"As an energy source, solar radiation is relative dilute. Impressive amounts of (desert) land area would have to be devoted to this use in order to replace fossil fuel supplies...Complete replacement...in the United States would require total collector fields on the order of 50,000 square miles, about 1 percent of the total US land area...obtaining the same power from biomass grown on energy farms would require more than 10 times that energy."

0 Replies

Given the choice of believing Fred Singer's figures or the U.S. Dept of Energy, I think I'd go with the DoE:

"PV [photo voltaic] technology can meet electricity demand on any scale. The solar energy resource in a 100-mile-square area of Nevada could supply the United States with all its electricity (about 800 gigawatts) using modestly efficient (10%) commercial PV modules".
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/myths.html

That's about 1/5 th of Singer's figure. And of course the solar model is much more decentralized--put solar panels on already-existing roofs of buildings, for example, and you're not taking up any more land and utilizing more efficiently already existent infrastructure.

They're dispelling myths in that cite. And "myth" is pretty much an accurate description of most of what Singer says. And notice that's with only 10% efficient PV cells. As I recall, some of the more advanced solar technology now is running over 20% and some near 30%.

Which makes it cost effective for any application at around a $60-$70 cost per barrel of oil. And that's with current technology. The efficiency has been growing rapidly the last several years. And anybody who thinks that oil's not going to be back in that neighborhood again in the next few years had better use some Windex on his crystal ball.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Of course, you will go with the DOE and you will ignore the following--even the comments by the spokesman for the UN, Tim Higham

Dr. Fred Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project revealed that the IPCC was distributing claims in a Summary for Policymakers that were not supported in either the underlying report allegedly being summarized in a later supplement. This allegation revealed just how the Summary was used to distort the work done by the IPCC. Dr. Frederick Seitz, a leading figure in America's scientific establishment wrote the following in a n op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.

"...this report(the Summary) is not what it appears to be--it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American Scientific Community, including service as the President of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report"

Source-Wall Street Journal-June 12, 1996--"A Major Deception on Global Warming"

It is clear that, according to Dr. Seitz, the political commisars changed the science into the "summary" thereby falsifying the results.

But, there is an even more disturbing comment from a member of the IPCC.

When the "New Scientist" asked about the change in language in the new summary, the spokesman for the UN Environment Program, Tim Higham, responded very honestly---'THERE WAS NO NEW SCIENCE, BUT THE SCIENTISTS WANTED TO PRESENT A CLEAR AND STRONG MESSAGE TO POLICY MAKERS"

source--New Scientist-
http://archive.newscientist.com/archive.jsp?id=22750300

0 Replies

According to the DoE, the average insolation in the U.S. yields 1800KWhr/m^2/yr (clearly some areas do much better, some much less, but that's the countrywide average). Which means doing a quick back of the envelope calculation 4 square meters of solar cells would, on average, provide my electricity needs year-round. And they say further, with current technology, the energy payback time for solar cells NOW is between one and three years, depending on the type of cell, which they describe correctly, as surprisingly short.

Fred Singer is so last-century. The technology now ain't what it was even three or four years ago. And it looks like what it is now will be outmoded again in three or four years.

As we discussed at some length a hundred pages or so back, Germany gets 11% of its energy NOW from wind power, and up to 40% in some states.

DoE calculations put the potential geothermal capacity within the US at 530 gigawatts, roughly half the current electric capacity, tho that's going to require a lot more development.

Going green looks to be just about within our grasp. I know you right wing types would love to take the oil sheiks out of their air-conditioned palaces and send them back to the desert on camel back. This is your chance, boys.

0 Replies

Notice the dateline on your Seitz article, Massagato? 1996. Which means he was talking about probably the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC. They just issued the Fourth last year. Whatever he was bitching about, and I notice the article you cite is extremely short on actual facts like what he was even talking about, it was superseded long ago. He's dead too.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

This is what YOU said High Seas, in case you forgot.

Quote:

Parados - check the veracity of the posters you link to, always having to correct you and your sources is getting tiresome.

You quote some clown who writes >"....So, Fred, please send along your documentation to prove me wrong. By the way it looks like this. I have also taken the liberty of letting the Nobel Foundation know about this, I'm sure they'll be interested. " > and actually links to the Nobel Foundation, of Sweden, which has NO CONNECTION with the Nobel Peace Prize, awarded by the Parliament of Norway - NOT for scientific accomplishment, but for some political cause that parliament wants to promote.

Like, DUH, please try to edit your posts of the more nonsensical variety.

What OE and I have both pointed out and you refuse to admit is true is that the Nobel Foundation DOES have a connection to the Nobel Peace prize.

http://nobelprize.org/nobelweb/index.html

Quote:

Nobelprize.org is the official web site of the Nobel Foundation.

http://nobelprize.org/nobelfoundation/index.html

Quote:

The Nobel Foundation

The Nobel Foundation is a private institution established in 1900 based on the will of Alfred Nobel. The Foundation manages the assets made available through the will for the awarding of the Nobel Prize in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and Peace. It represents the Nobel Institutions externally and administers informational activities and arrangements surrounding the presentation of the Nobel Prize. The Foundation also administers the Nobel Symposium Program.

Like DUH.... Can you see the word "peace" now?

So what was your point High Seas? Other than proving you are tenacious about proving you are wrong but don't want to admit you are wrong.

Because Singer works some times for an organization that won the Nobel Peace Prize doesn't mean he won the Prize. No rational argument can be made that he can list that as one of his accomplishments. The Nobel committee hasn't recognized him personally. The acceptance speech given by the head of the IPCC doesn't cite Singer or even state that the award is shared by the scientists who work on the reports. Claiming Singer won the Nobel prize is idiotic by him and anyone that supports him in saying it. The printer of the IPCC report has as much validity as Singer does to claim the Nobel Prize.

1 Reply

@parados,

The simple fact is that on your link, Parados, the reference made by the writer was to the Swedish Academy of Sciences - which gives the SCIENCE Nobel prizes, as neither of you seems to be able to grasp - whereas his original subject was the POLITICAL prize handed to Al Gore by Norwegian politicians.

Trying to say they're the SAME thing because Alfred Nobel funded both, as the name alone might indicate to even the most stupid among us, is beneath even the limited intellectual honesty displayed by you and OE so far.

2 Replies

@High Seas,

Really? I find no reference to the Swedish Academy of Sciences on the link I gave.
Here it is again.
http://www.desmogblog.com/fred-singers-nobel-prize-winning-sham

I would love to see where you think the writer did reference the Swedish Academy. He linked to the Nobel Foundation which it has been pointed out repeatedly DOES deal with the peace prize.

Quote:

Wow. There's denial of reality, there' delusion, there's delusions of grandeur, and then there's the prolific climate denier S. Fred Singer claiming that he is a Nobel Prize winner.

In a bio description for an upcoming talk to a UK skeptics society meeting, (sent to us by a very astute DeSmog reader) Singer has this to say about himself:

As a reviewer of IPCC reports, he [Singer] shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore."

Our sources tell us that the bio description was sent to the Skeptics Society by Singer himself.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore were presented the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for their work on climate change issues, and as such they were bestowed the great honor of joining the ranks of the small few in the world who can rightly call themselves "Nobel Laureates."

I too am an IPCC reviewer - I received advance copies of the working reports and spent about 10 hours looking over the reports and offering my advice from a communications point of view. I wouldn't even think about propping up myself to league of Al Gore or the IPCC scientists who have dedicated their lives to the issue of climate change.

I have more respect for science than that.

And, after talking to one of the IPCC scientists who can rightly call himself a Nobel Laureate, I know that in order to claim to be a Nobel prize winner, you receive documentation designating you as such.

So, Fred, please send along your documentation to prove me wrong. By the way it looks like this. I have also taken the liberty of letting the Nobel Foundation know about this, I'm sure they'll be interested.

If you could kindly point out the reference then I might believe you High Seas. If you can't point it out then I will accept an apology for calling me intellectually dishonest.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Given the choice of believing Fred Singer's figures or the U.S. Dept of Energy, I think I'd go with the DoE:

I think that if you knew this bureaucracy better you might be inclined to revise your opinion,

0 Replies

If you knew Fred Singer better you wouldn't think so.

1 Reply

What is the area of a single large solar panel?

How many kilowatts does a single large solar panel produce in the interval 12PM to 1 PM?

How many kilowatts does a single large solar panel produce in the interval 12AM to 1 AM?

How many kilowatts does a single large solar panel produce in the interval 12PM to 1 PM on a cloudy thick ceiling day?

How many kilowatts does a single large solar panel produce in the interval 12AM to 1 AM on a cloudy thick ceiling night?

1 Reply

@High Seas,

You are wrong, High Seas, but I will admit that you are at least very persistent in being wrong. I have to admire that quality.

You are certainly free to claim that the Nobel Peace Prize is a "fake-o non-scientific, politicized prize" if that makes you feel better. You're even free to make that claim in the face of the fact that the Nobel Peace Prize was founded based on the written will of Alfred Nobel himself, whereas the Nobel Prize for Economics wasn't.

However, your idée fixe that the Nobel Peace Prize is not a "real" Nobel Prize, as you've been claiming, is simply a falsehood. Likewise is your claim that the Nobel Foundation has "no connection" to the Nobel Peace Prize. And so is your assertion that the author of the text parados linked to referred to the Swedish Academy of Sciences rather than to the Nobel Foundation.

It's quite astonishing that you have the gall to accuse others of displaying "limited intellectual honesty", High Seas.

1 Reply

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know