[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

My favourite scenario would be the sudden discovery that we are headed for an imminent ice age, and then all the world leaders would get together and say "We have to pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we possibly can!"

If such a thing comes to pass then after I say, "I told you so.", about AGW, I most definitely would extend the hospitality of our home to you and yours.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

It's a fascinating field. In myopinion, the reason that you are not hearing back from the various political parties is that the ebergy situation facing the human population required big thinking. Regardless of climate change, oil will go up in price as it becomes more scarce and more difficult to refine into products we need. We could move into shale and stuff, but (on top of teh CO2 accumulation) you're going ot start reaching the point where it takes the energy of a barrel of oil to make a barrel of oil. That's your thermodynamic limit.

Solar is nice but it's intermittent adn also you'd have to probably cover a few percent of Canada's total land area to really put a dent in things. Same with wind and tidal. They're good supplemental sources, and provide resiliency in your energy supply system, but they can't be the bread and butter of your system. Hydro isd great for BC, but there's not enough hydro to supply the world's need without doing in all your rivers.

After oil gets scarce, the only realistic default is nuclear fission. There's probably enough uranium for fifty years or so.

After that, I think we're going to need something novel. Capturing sunlight from space and microwaving to earth, for instance. Maybe nuclear fusion.

I'm certainly not saying that solar power will eliminate the need for any other power source, but it would reduce the dependency on it. And creating solar farms would be about as unfeasible as creating enough wind farms when it comes to land use. BUT it's much more feasible for an individual home to be equipped with it's own solar power than it is to have it's own wind turbine.
Solar power for the individual home isn't really that far off. There WAS some inroads being made in efficiency and cost. Look at the quantum leap in power in computers over the last 10 years or less. Plus the cost of computers is dropping all the time. All thanks to dedicated R&D. If computer chips can be made smaller and more powerful, then solar cells can be made smaller and more efficient, and thusly more powerful.
But as I keep saying, no government is interested in a solution that will erode what they get in taxes for power consumption. Wind turbines have their own issues but assuming they wnent ahead with wind farms, guess what, yer still hooked onto the grid and paying taxes on every single watt of power you use.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

My favourite scenario would be the sudden discovery that we are headed for an imminent ice age, and then all the world leaders would get together and say "We have to pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we possibly can!"

If such a thing comes to pass then after I say, "I told you so.", about AGW, I most definitely would extend the hospitality of our home to you and yours.

Cheers, bud!

Here is an interesting article on the imminent ice age:

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

$1:

[global warming] thinking is centered around slow changes to our climate and how they will affect humans and the habitability of our planet. Yet this thinking is flawed: It ignores the well-established fact that Earth’s climate has changed rapidly in the past and could change rapidly in the future. The issue centers around the paradox that global warming could instigate a new Little Ice Age in the northern hemisphere.


The best known example of these events is the Younger Dryas cooling of about 12,000 years ago, named for arctic wildflower remains identified in northern European sediments. This event began and ended within a decade and for its 1000 year duration the North Atlantic region was about 5°C colder.

You read it here first folks. Global warming will cause an ice age in ten years!!!

[Bodah]

If you want to see the rest go to youtube and search for Micahel Coren Christopher Monckton.

Unlike Al Gore, Monckton speaks for free. Follow the money.

[PluggyRug]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

responding to climate change

Why waste energy responding to a nonexistent entity.

So, you don't think carbon dioxide radiates heat? Or you don't thihnk that the concentration of CO2 is rising? Or do you think, over the long term, that other factors will negate the heat produced by teh surplus carbon dioxide?

Here's a good read Zip, it's long, full of math and probably has flaws.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf

[Zipperfish]

Wow--that's like 113 pages. I'll have to have a read of this one. A rather novel approach--he posits that the so-called Greenhoue Effect (developed by Arrhenius) is a crock. That's a pretty major statement.

One flaw right off the bat--he spends a lot of time talking about how the greenhouses don't work by the Greenhouse Effect. While correct, that is also common knowledge.

[sandorski]

ridenrain ridenrain:

sandorski sandorski:

Don't Jump! Gravity is not Proven!!

Gravity is proven because it's repeatable.
What your asking is for us to believe your religion, based on erased data.

Fail. GW/CC is just as "Proven" as Gravity.

[PluggyRug]

sandorski sandorski:

ridenrain ridenrain:

sandorski sandorski:

Don't Jump! Gravity is not Proven!!

Gravity is proven because it's repeatable.
What your asking is for us to believe your religion, based on erased data.

Fail. GW/CC is just as "Proven" as Gravity.

So what happened to the repeatability, oh yes forgot that would take 20,000 years to prove.

[ridenrain]

Believe or go to jail!

[sandorski]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Believe or go to jail!

Ignorance is worse than any Prison.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Wow--that's like 113 pages. I'll have to have a read of this one. A rather novel approach--he posits that the so-called Greenhoue Effect (developed by Arrhenius) is a crock. That's a pretty major statement.

One flaw right off the bat--he spends a lot of time talking about how the greenhouses don't work by the Greenhouse Effect. While correct, that is also common knowledge.

Another good one is Miskolczi theory. Remember that one? Although nit-picked and niggled at, I don't think it's ever been truly falsified. Critics refer to events millions of years ago that may or may not have falsified it, but I think he stays within the framework of the last 10,000 years.

Basically it says the greenhouse effect has to remain constant. Runaway greenhouse warming is not possible. CO2, and water vapor balance themselves out. The crisis part of greenhouse theory is therefore bogus.

It's a fascinating story even beyond the science. Misckolczi worked at NASA, but he was prevented from releasing his results.

$1:

NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. "Money", he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Bas ... e10973.htm

He left NASA, and found a small Hungarian journal to publish in. The actual paper is too math deep for me, but if you want to check it out you can find a link to it here.

If you can stay awake, this YouTube vid explains the theory.



It's explained textually...

Here

and Here

Not Misckolckzi but the same concept discussed here

[Zipperfish]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Here's a good read Zip, it's long, full of math and probably has flaws.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf

Do you agree with this guy's theory, or are you just throwing up a smokescreen?

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Another good one is Miskolczi theory. Remember that one? Although nit-picked and niggled at, I don't think it's ever been truly falsified. Critics refer to events millions of years ago that may or may not have falsified it, but I think he stays within the framework of the last 10,000 years.

Basically it says the greenhouse effect has to remain constant. Runaway greenhouse warming is not possible. CO2, and water vapor balance themselves out. The crisis part of greenhouse theory is therefore bogus.

It's a fascinating story even beyond the science. Misckolczi worked at NASA, but he was prevented from releasing his results.

$1:

NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. "Money", he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Bas ... e10973.htm

He left NASA, and found a small Hungarian journal to publish in. The actual paper is too math deep for me, but if you want to check it out you can find a link to it here.

If you can stay awake, this YouTube vid explains the theory.



It's explained textually...

Here

and Here

Not Misckolckzi but the same concept discussed here

Interesting stuff. He's basically talking about feedback here. He's saying that the feedback is automatically regulated by the ecosystem (by virtue of the fact that G has remained equal to about one-third throughout the last century).

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier, when I was discussing how ecosystems tend to try to maintain their equilibrium. It doesn't get into it in the video, but apparently he goes on to show that water vapour is responsible for equalizing the system. If this is the case we should be seeing a change int he water vapour regime to counteract the increase in CO2 measured. I wonder if anyone is working on that.

That's different than the other guy who says that radiation is unimportant and convection and conduction are the dominant regimes in heating the atmosphere--a much more controversial claim, I'd say! I note that their paper--after several years--was recently published in a peer-reviewed journal.

G. Gerlich, R. D. Tscheuschner (2009) Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics. International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (30 January 2009), 275-364 (World Scientific Publishing Co.)

International Journal of Modern Physics B

The paper sounds fishy to me. I'd love to get into it, but I don't have the time. The fishy part is where they say the greenhouse effect, as currently theorized, is a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. entropy). I just don't see that at all.

[BartSimpson]

sandorski sandorski:

Fail. GW/CC is just as "Proven" as Gravity.

No, it isn't.

1G always causes objects to fall at an accelerating rate of 32' per second per second.

Global Warming has been consistently not warming since 1998.

Big difference.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

1G always causes objects to fall at an accelerating rate of 9.8 m per second per second.

Global Warming has been consistently not warming since 1998.

Big difference.

Corrected. Please ttry to keep in mind that this is a Canadian forum!