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

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

You really are unusual in the tiny details you use to evade accountability for the erroneous accusations you throw out so liberally.

Just keep in mind parados is the same guy that has claimed he milked cows twice a day from the age of 7 to 16, and that he and his brother were baling and stacking hay at the ages of 9 and 10. Perhaps that will help you understand why some of his statements are so hard to believe. Maybe its because we shouldn't try to believe them, or take him seriously?

1 Reply

@okie,

Well, it is as anecdotal but quite a few nuclear power plants aren't working due to technical difficulties.

But I'm no nuclear technician. Nor one for wind turbines.

(Here, quite often, wind turbines don't work because the electricity companies can't handle the surplus of that electricity.)

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

parados wrote:

No george. This was the post. I am not the one being untruthful or inaccurate. Nor am I the one with a reading problem it seems.

Whatever. I was very clear in what I was referring to, and it wasn't the fraction of observed warming as you now assert. Read my words.

You really are unusual in the tiny details you use to evade accountability for the erroneous accusations you throw out so liberally.

Except it isn't clear what you are talking about.

Quote:

True enough, however the GW cult is nearly unanimous in asserting that a solution can and must promptly be found by diminishing only the man-made constituent. This alone flies in the face of reason, given its relatively small share of the total. It also implies a number of usually unstated or unacknowledged assumptions on the part of the cultists ... i.e. that such a change is possible without inflicting far more harm on the earth's six + billion people; and that no greater natural phenomina are at work that might swamp whatever we might do at great cost.

Warming has a man made and a natural constituent and since I was talking about warming and you agreed with my statement ABOUT warming in the same sentence I can only assume you were talking about warming. Really george, you might want to admit you are wrong on this one because clearly you are. You make no reference to CO2. You respond to a statement that makes no reference to CO2. You agree with a statement I made about warming. And yet somehow we are supposed to know you weren't talking about what you were responding to?

Perhaps you can point out your clarity because I don't see it. I only see you attacking me for an inability to read and then your statements are the one that meet what you are attacking me for.

0 Replies

@okie,

And okie is the guy that spent months denying his own words and is now trying to argue that multiple leases in a single building means the same thing as multiple buildings.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, it is as anecdotal but quite a few nuclear power plants aren't working due to technical difficulties.

Shutting down a nuclear plant is more expensive than keeping it running - you should know that, it's verifiable fact, not anecdotal rumor.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/790000/images/_791670_schroeder300.jpg

Gerhard Schroeder was on the wrong side of history (Vereinigung), technology (nuclear plant shutdowns), and politics - too many times to mention Smile

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

(Here, quite often, wind turbines don't work because the electricity companies can't handle the surplus of that electricity.)

Aren't wind turbines by specification also convertible into flywheels? Aren't high-speed flywheels more efficient energy storage devices than batteries?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Besides, nuclear power is cheaper than coal or natural gas, and we have abundant natural fuel for it, as well as the ability to make even more of it in breeder reactors that also produce electrical power while they're at it.

Worse still is the fact China has now cornered uranium supply in Africa and Australia for decades. They can do a uniform design better even than the French (who have to deal with occasional protesters) and that's what's being installed, a simplistic, idiot-proof breeder reactor design. Japan is watching.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

(Here, quite often, wind turbines don't work because the electricity companies can't handle the surplus of that electricity.)

I doubt that is the whole story. After all it is relatively easy to throttle back on the output of the gas turbine or nuclear power plants; a bit more troublesome with the coal-fired plants - if the wind turbines can produce steady levels of power. I suspect the issue may be fairly light and variable winds that yield only unsteady, low levels of power - something that can't be relied on to meet the slowly varying load on the electrical network.

That problem and the fact that the wind doesn't blow every day also means that, while wind turbines can produce relatively "green" power, they don't replace nuclear or fossil fueled plants on a one-for-one basis. The electricity companies must retain the generating capacity of more reliable plants.

Germany has invested heavily in wind power generation, but I noticed that your government has altered its former policy with respect to the formerly planned shutdown of its nuclear plants. I have wondered if some level of disenchantment with the economics of wind generation may be a factor in this.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Besides, nuclear power is cheaper than coal or natural gas, and we have abundant natural fuel for it, as well as the ability to make even more of it in breeder reactors that also produce electrical power while they're at it.
Worse still is the fact China has now cornered uranium supply in Africa and Australia for decades. They can do a uniform design better even than the French (who have to deal with occasional protesters) and that's what's being installed, a simplistic, idiot-proof breeder reactor design. Japan is watching.

Bad news if thats true. I hope China doesn't corner the reserves in Canada as well. They would have virtually all of it then.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Germany has invested heavily in wind power generation, but I noticed that your government has altered its former policy with respect to the formerly planned shutdown of its nuclear plants. I have wondered if some level of disenchantment with the economics of wind generation may be a factor in this.

No. It's the policy of the conservative-liberal coalition government - and the result of the lobby works of the nuclear industry.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

No. It's the policy of the conservative-liberal coalition government - and the result of the lobby works of the nuclear industry.

Both are true: Chancellor Merkel has given several speeches explaining there is no viable alternative to zero CO2 emissions except for nuclear power. I don't remember offhand if she mentioned costs or stuck to technical specs (she's a particle physicist as you know) but I could find you a link.

0 Replies

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

Jan-Dec Global Mean Temperature over Land & Ocean
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2010

Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2010
http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_English.jpg

Solar Irradiance 1611 t0 2001

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

CO2 Density Trend 1958-2008

0 Replies

I found this interesting, that Central England average annual temp for 2010 was 8.83 degrees C, which is interestingly the same as for the year 1659, the first year given in the record on this link, also 1.28 degrees lower than 2009, and 8.83 is lower than any year since 1963, 47 years ago. So much for global warming in the United Kingdom!! Of course global warming proponents will tell us here that the United Kingdom means nothing in the grand scheme of things globally, but I beg to differ, because the historical record for that region is one of the longest ones available for any significant region of the world, and so I think it is very important in terms of being a very meaningful indicator.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat

I agree with the following:
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html#CET
"It occurs to us that the Central England Temperature set makes a good proxy for the northern hemisphere and examination of the plot drawn from Jones, P.D. and M.E. Mann. 2004. Climate Over Past Millennia suggest this is indeed the case. The Central England set suggests the northern hemisphere reached contemporary references temperatures in the 1940s (as shown by the NH HadCRUT2v track used by Jones and Mann) and likely did so in the 1830s and 1720s as well. Why do we mention this? Well, it certainly appears startlingly at odds with a rather more notorious northern hemisphere temperature graphic, doesn't it?"

0 Replies

sheesh, talk about cherry-picking data.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Would you rather I used data from climate stations here in the U.S. that are located in asphalt paved parking lots, along jet aircraft runways, and adjacent to airconditioner vents, places like that?

0 Replies

You might try using the satellite records, radiosonde records, ARGOS and other deep ocean and sea surface temperature records, rural records, and urban records--ALL of which show similar rising temperature trends. You might look into the actual research which compares records from rural stations and urban ones (yfou thought they just put everything into one pot and stirred? wrong. The data sets are combined by type of station and compared, among other things, to see if there's bias). You might read the "uban heat island" article in wikipedia for some of the ways urban temps have been studied.

1 Reply

And you might avoid citing anything that Steve Milloy produces, like Junk Science. He's a paid corporate shill and always has been, dating back to the days when he worked for the tobacco companies and spent years arguing there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

I find it bothersome that some people who gets into working for the wrong companies to advocate for their products with lies still has the ability to find jobs. No conscience.

0 Replies

Incidentally, NOAA, using ALL the available data, says January-November 2010 was the warmest January-November on record. (December results won't come out until mid-January, total 2010 sometime after that).

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

I'm waiting to be convinced by your scary data that we are all about to die, Jack. Present your data. I still contend that the Central England temperature record is a significant set of data to consider. Perhaps you are unaware too that Steve Milloy did not invent the data, he only posts it on his website.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know