Conclusive physical evidence for AWG?

[[email protected]]

Be coercive, be a master of your magnetic domain.
Don't display your reluctance!

Here is conclusive evidence for AWG.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_wire_gauge

Rod Serling got it right...... way back in 1961.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Midnight_Sun

Mark

 

[Greegor]

Rod Serling got it right...... way back in 1961.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Midnight_Sun

Which is funnier, using Wiki to prove something,
using a Twilight Zone episode to argue for something,
or a Wiki about a TZ episode used as argument?

Quit your job and walk around with a sandwich board
sign saying "The End Is Near!". LOL

 

[nospam]

And in the UK the greenies are fighting the Severn Barrage that would
generate 20% of our electricity.

4.8% is claimed and frequently misrepresented as 4.8% of UK energy
requirements when it is actually 4.8% of electrical requirement and more
like 0.6% of overall energy requirement.

About the same capacity as one medium sized nuke and probably 5 times more
expensive.

--

 

[Martin Brown]

What are the physical manifestations of global warming that we can
actually MEASURE and OBSERVE?

When it comes to making important policy decisions that effect all of
us, there needs to be a clear distinction between PREDICTIONS and
SIMULATIONS vs. physical MEASUREMENTS and OBSERVATIONS. To make an
analogy to electronics, are you going to make major decisions that
impact the economic health of your company based solely upon the
results of PSPICE simulations or are you going to build prototypes
and make real measurements?

We only have one Earth to play with. The analogy is closer to a
situation where SPICE says you are likely to burn out a very expensive
component with your proposed design. Do you go ahead, build it, pray and
switch on or redesign it to meet the chips safe operating parameters?

1) CO2 CONCENTRATION
The measured increase in CO2 concentration is well established. The
CAUSE of the increase is not well established. The measured increase
is within the same order of magnitude as the amount of CO2
civilization is putting into the atmosphere therefore theory that the
CO2 increase is anthropogenic is a reasonable possibility but not a
100% certainty. The CO2 concentration has varied widely well before
the use of fossil fuels. The increase in CO2 concentration is
conclusive but the cause of the increase is not conclusive.

The cause of the increase is also conclusive. We can measure the stable
isotope ration of the CO2 in the air and it is changing to reflect the
huge amounts of fossil fuel we are burning. This is also measured as a
part of the Hawaii time series data and is online at:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/iadv/

Choose "Time Series" and "CO2C13" to see the SIRA data.

And in addition since about 2000 the paramagnetic oxygen measurements
have become accurate enough to measure the corresponding decreases in
the Earth's atmospheric oxygen content. See for example:

http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/publications/ralph/29_Precise.pdf

There is no doubt at all that the CO2 increases in the atmosphere and in
the oceans is coming from our burning fossil fuels. The isotopic
signature is clear and definitive.

2) GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE
The measured global temperature increase we measure today is very
small and is within the noise of normal weather variations. There
are no conclusive measurements that can show the cause of this small
temperature increase is due to CO2 or to sun spots or to anything
else. Predictions that there will be dangerous climate temperature
increases in the future are based on simulations. The simulations

Actually it is possible to show that the recent trend cannot be due to
changes in the suns output. We have satellite monitoring of the sun at
multiple wavebands going back about 3 decades.

assume that the temperature rise is caused by the C02 concentration
increase and that the CO2 increase is anthropogenic. The cause of the
small measured global temperature increase is not conclusive.

Actually it works for all GHG CH4 and various CFCs are potent GHG too.

3) SEA LEVEL INCREASE
The measured global sea level rise today is very small also. There
are no conclusive measurements that can show this small increase has
anything to do with CO2 or temperature or anything else. Predictions

It has to do with ice melting on the land, and expansion of the oceans
as they warm up. Water expanding when heated is no in dispute.

that there will be dangerous increases in sea level in the future are
based on simulations. The cause of the small measured sea level rise
is not conclusive.

The dittoheads will still be saying this when parts of New York are
under water.

4) POLAR ICE
The measured decrease in Arctic polar ice is well established. The
measured increase in Antarctic polar ice is also well established.
There are no conclusive measurements or physical evidence that
indicate a dangerous trend.

If we did not have sensitive scientific instruments, we would not
even be aware of some of the small changes that have been measured.

So much better to remain ignorant.

These observations are interesting and worthy of further study.
However, there is no conclusive physical evidence that anything
dangerous is actually happening.

Doubtless there won't be until dangerous things actually occur. And for
the first few major bad events the denialists will still pipe up with
the standard refrain "you can't prove that AGW caused this disaster".
The same tactic still works beautifully for big tobacco. Using smart
lawyers and prostitute scientists it is possible to find a legal form of
words to make reassuring noises in a law court to the effect that
"smoking tobacco does not cause cancer" without committing pervury.

Does it make sense to base a national and world energy policy on
simulations without conclusive physical evidence?

How much more conclusive do you want? Another 2 or 3 US cities inundated
or most of California dessicated and burnt up in heatwave wildfires?

Does it make sense to levy a carbon tax or establish a cap and trade
bureaucracy, without conclusive physical evidence?

Cap and trade is a crazy system. It will just create a market in more
financial derivatives for traders to gamble with. A carbon tax makes
sense since it is the fastest way to encourage better fuel efficiency.

Does it make sense to use resources to build large carbon capture
facilities to sequester CO2 underground without conclusive physical
evidence?

There is *conclusive* physical evidence that you choose to ignore. The
worlds scientists are convinced. In the UK most of the politcal parties
are reasonably convinced (apart from the extremes of left and right).

Does it make sense to forgo the use of our oil and coal resources
without conclusive physical evidence?

Hang on. It is more a case of being more energy efficient. We cannot
abandon coal and oil with our present tenchnologies, but we could slow
down the rate at which we are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. That
will buy us more time and as such is worthwhile.

Regardless of the validity of AGW, we do need to address the issue of
our energy supply. We DO need to develop alternative energy
sources. We do need to develop renewable energy sources. We do need
to improve energy efficiency. We do need to consider nuclear energy.
These are all forward moving productive steps for civilization to
progress and improve the quality of life.

At the very least you are forced to invest a huge amount in sea defences
if you are going for a business as usuall solution until the damage can
no longer be ignored.

However, imposing taxes, building CO2 sequestration plants, creating
a cap and trade bureaucracy and demonizing oil and coal without
CONCLUSIVE physical evidence of a real problem just does not make any
sense.

There is conclusive physical evidence. Apart from a few politically
motivated dissidents mainly far right Americans there is no dispute in
the scientific community now about the evidence for AGW.

There is debate about what to do about AGW to mitigate its effects, but
that is a separate issue entirely.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Martin Brown]

Imagine that you're on a bus, having a party with beer and good looking
fellow party-goers. The bus is hurtling down the freeway at 60 miles an
hour.

Now some egghead pulls a map out of his pocket, and on the map, printed
in big letters, is a note that the freeway ends at a brick wall.

So you have two options: pull over, stop the party, and let everything
cool down, or just keep going, possibly to drive into a brick wall at 60
miles an hour.

So which do you do? The low-cost, extra precaution that reduces your
immediate fun but insures your survival? Or do you just keep drinking
your beer and tell the driver to speed up, because _you_ haven't _seen_
that wall with _your own eyes_?

Actually the egg heads are presently saying something more along the
lines of "don't you think it would be a good idea to travel at a speed
where you can stop in the distance that you can see to be clear".

And Exxon and its lying PR team are saying, no, no keep the pedal to the
metal and scream if you want to go faster. It will all end in tears.

Enjoy your beer.

Shades of the Italian job I expect.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Nico Coesel]

What are the physical manifestations of global warming that we can
actually MEASURE and OBSERVE?

When it comes to making important policy decisions that effect all of
us, there needs to be a clear distinction between PREDICTIONS and
SIMULATIONS vs. physical MEASUREMENTS and OBSERVATIONS. To make an
analogy to electronics, are you going to make major decisions that
impact the economic health of your company based solely upon the
results of PSPICE simulations or are you going to build prototypes
and make real measurements?

1) CO2 CONCENTRATION
The measured increase in CO2 concentration is well established. The
CAUSE of the increase is not well established. The measured increase
is within the same order of magnitude as the amount of CO2
civilization is putting into the atmosphere therefore theory that the
CO2 increase is anthropogenic is a reasonable possibility but not a
100% certainty. The CO2 concentration has varied widely well before
the use of fossil fuels. The increase in CO2 concentration is
conclusive but the cause of the increase is not conclusive.

A side note: the CO2 concentrations have never been so high as they
are now. Ice drillings show that.

If we did not have sensitive scientific instruments, we would not
even be aware of some of the small changes that have been measured.

Not quite true. Over here the winters have become noticably warmer
with less frost. This winter has been the first winter in which people
where able to skate on canals and bigger lakes since 11 years. The
last winter in which people could skate on ice in small canals has
been about 5 or 6 years ago.

Does it make sense to levy a carbon tax or establish a cap and trade
bureaucracy, without conclusive physical evidence?

There is one thing you are missing but is definitely a political
factor in this discussion: the fossil fuel reserves aren't infinite
and alternatives take longer to develop than planned. So any reason to
reduce the fossil fuel consumption is a good one. It doesn't take a
genius to understand that all of the fossile fuel will be used
eventually. Cutting fossil fuel consumption may postpone the point of
exhaustion for a couple of years or allow more people to drive a car
(which by then are willing to pay for cars powered by something else).

 

[Nico Coesel]

The idea that a freeway would end in a *brick* wall, and that it would
be printed on a map, and that there would be no barriers, no
diversions, no warning signs, no cop-cars with flashing lights, no
common knowledge, is as absurd a conceit as AGW.

Sometimes shit happens but angels are always around:

http://www.mainpost.de/_/tools/diaview.html?_CMTREE=35180&_CMBILD=2018151

 

[[email protected]]

As an engineer, would you say that a system with positive feedback:

a) Stays reasonably stable (like the earth does)?

or

b) Drives itself to some upper or lower limit (like the earth doesn't)?

Positive feedback only leads to run-away situations if the the
incremental feedback is greater than unity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_progression

The earth has - in fact - looked more like your (b) for the last
million years, alternating between ice ages and interglacials. Since
this alternation seems to have been driven by the small orbital
forcing described by Milankovitch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

we don't seem to be talking about a limit cycle here, but rather
simple postive feedback that isn't quite large enough to produce run-
away.

Engineers don't always understand positive feedback as well as they
might. In 1979 I used a small amout of positive feedback to linearise
a platinum resistance thermometer, which is routine now (since
Honeywell designed it into one of their circuits) but wasn't back
then. The engineer who took over the project when I moved on had
precisely you kind of mistrust of positive feedback, and replaced a
single precision resistor with couple of diodes and a handful of
resistors that did a poorer job, to eliminate a non-existent risk of
oscillation.

 

[[email protected]]

No. Tony Bliar sent UK into Iraq because of WMD. Tony Bliar and his
successor Gordon Clown have been pushing AGW.

Tony Blair's participation in the Irak debacle was entirely in his
capacity as a lackey of George W,Bush - Britain would never had
invaded Irak on its own, and the US would still have invaded Irak even
if Tony Blair had had more sense and more backbone.

No. Tony Bliar sent UK into Iraq because of WMD.

Tony Blair took the UK into Irak as a US lap-dog - he didn't care
about the reality of WMD's any more than Bush did, and even if he had
he was in no position to point out that Bush was talking nonsense.

Tony Bliar and his
successor Gordon Clown have been pushing AGW.

At least they have got something right.

irrelevent link that does not discuss carbonate rocks.

The Ice Ages are a little too close together for geological carbon
capture to be all that important. It does become more important when
you go back further into the geological past.

So? I didn't dispute that. If you can't follow the discussion don't
comment.

What you said was

I'd foolishly assumed that you had some minimal understanding of what
was going on. In the ice core data, the Milankovitch mechanism
eventually reduces the solar heat being absorbed by the earth, which
cools the planet a little, oceans included. The cooler oceans can
dissolve more CO2 so the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere decreases,
along with the water vapour, reducing greenhouse warming, so the
oceans cool some more. Because the positive feedback is low enough to
avoid run-away cooling, the earth's surface temperature eventually
settles down at new - lower - equilibrium and stays there until the
Milankovitch cycle injects a little bit more solar radiation and
reverses the process.

If you didn't already appreciate this rather basic point you should be
spending your time learning more about the subject, rather than
wasting our time by posting your half-baked ideas.

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Slomanwrote:

Not acceptable to Greenies.

Who cares what the lunatic fringe of the Green movement thinks?

Wind turbines kill birds.

Until they learn to do better. It is called evolution in action -
perfectly green.

Solar cells are made with nasty chemicals.

As is pretty much everything else in the modern world. Chemists - and
I've got a Ph.D. in the subject - do know how to keep nasty chemicals
out of the environment. Some cheap-skate manufacturers do try and save
money by neglecting to implement the - not very expensive - measures
involved, but that might justify more inspectors, nt a ban on
manufacturing solar cells.

Greenies are trying to tear down dams, not build more of them.

Only the very lunatic fringe.

The French have the right idea.  Nuclear reactors.  Many, many
nuclear reactors. A breeder reactor is the ultimate in renewable
energy.

It is also an excellent source of plutonium - which is one of the
reasons the French like them so much, and a worrying source of long-
lived high level radioactive waste. Even perfectly sane greenies have
legitimate anxieties about getting rid of the waste.

I'm no greenie, but I've still got reservations about nuclear waste.

 

[[email protected]]

And in the UK the greenies are fighting the Severn Barrage that would
generate 20% of our electricity.

Greenies want us back in the stone age.

One could oppose the Severn Barrage without having any desire to move
civilisation back to the Stone Age.

Most Greenies would be happy to settle for a sustainable economy,
which wouldn't have to be much different from the one we live in. We
could get by without burning any fossil carbon at all, though it would
take quite a lot of capital investment to get there. If we start now,
we've got enough time in hand to do it fairly slowly, without
sacrificing any signficant part of our standard of living.

If we hung around too long, and had to make the changeover while
coping with declining agricultural output and rising sea levels, it
could involve a painful amount of belt-tightening.

 

[bw]

Earth does indeed have a historical uper limit - with global average
surface temperature historical estimated-upper-limits being close to 22
degreees C at times when the world was warm enough to remove most of the
positive feedback that resulted from mobility of change in coverage of
significant regions of the world by snow/ice in one form or another.

The "historical" upper limit is an estimate that happens to match a physical
limit based on the major albedo regulating parameters, biological
(photosynthesis) on land, marine forams/diatoms, and the geological ocean to
land ratio. The earth will regulate itself, with or without industrial
activity.
The upper limit is a "brick wall"

Please keep in mind what the sea level was when our planet had stable
temperature with higher presence of "Greenhouse Gases". Who pays the
bills to move from "where it was good" to "where it becomes good"?
How much or how little should taxation assist population movements from
regions becoming less-livable to regions more-livable, and where is a line
drawn (or where are lines drawn) so that individuals/families/regions
"knowing what to do" as a result of "good attitude" are only taxed to
"charitably appropriate extent" ("My Words") and that "the successful"
get hit with taxes "sufficiently short of punishing the successful for
succeess".

This is a pointless paragraph, you should stick to science.
Humans have always adapted to any environmental changes, it's one of our
defining characteristics.

 

[richard]

What are the physical manifestations of global warming that we can
actually MEASURE and OBSERVE?

When it comes to making important policy decisions that effect all of
us, there needs to be a clear distinction between PREDICTIONS and
SIMULATIONS vs. physical MEASUREMENTS and OBSERVATIONS. To make an
analogy to electronics, are you going to make major decisions that
impact the economic health of your company based solely upon the
results of PSPICE simulations or are you going to build prototypes
and make real measurements?

1) CO2 CONCENTRATION
The measured increase in CO2 concentration is well established. The
CAUSE of the increase is not well established. The measured increase
is within the same order of magnitude as the amount of CO2
civilization is putting into the atmosphere therefore theory that the
CO2 increase is anthropogenic is a reasonable possibility but not a
100% certainty. The CO2 concentration has varied widely well before
the use of fossil fuels. The increase in CO2 concentration is
conclusive but the cause of the increase is not conclusive.


2) GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE
The measured global temperature increase we measure today is very
small and is within the noise of normal weather variations. There
are no conclusive measurements that can show the cause of this small
temperature increase is due to CO2 or to sun spots or to anything
else. Predictions that there will be dangerous climate temperature
increases in the future are based on simulations. The simulations
assume that the temperature rise is caused by the C02 concentration
increase and that the CO2 increase is anthropogenic. The cause of the
small measured global temperature increase is not conclusive.



3) SEA LEVEL INCREASE
The measured global sea level rise today is very small also. There
are no conclusive measurements that can show this small increase has
anything to do with CO2 or temperature or anything else. Predictions
that there will be dangerous increases in sea level in the future are
based on simulations. The cause of the small measured sea level rise
is not conclusive.


4) POLAR ICE
The measured decrease in Arctic polar ice is well established. The
measured increase in Antarctic polar ice is also well established.
There are no conclusive measurements or physical evidence that
indicate a dangerous trend.

If we did not have sensitive scientific instruments, we would not
even be aware of some of the small changes that have been measured.
These observations are interesting and worthy of further study.
However, there is no conclusive physical evidence that anything
dangerous is actually happening.

Does it make sense to base a national and world energy policy on
simulations without conclusive physical evidence?

Does it make sense to levy a carbon tax or establish a cap and trade
bureaucracy, without conclusive physical evidence?

Does it make sense to use resources to build large carbon capture
facilities to sequester CO2 underground without conclusive physical
evidence?

Does it make sense to forgo the use of our oil and coal resources
without conclusive physical evidence?


Regardless of the validity of AGW, we do need to address the issue of
our energy supply. We DO need to develop alternative energy
sources. We do need to develop renewable energy sources. We do need
to improve energy efficiency. We do need to consider nuclear energy.
These are all forward moving productive steps for civilization to
progress and improve the quality of life.

However, imposing taxes, building CO2 sequestration plants, creating
a cap and trade bureaucracy and demonizing oil and coal without
CONCLUSIVE physical evidence of a real problem just does not make any
sense.

Mark

Troll

 

[[email protected]]

Stupid rhetoric from the greenie AGW crowd. But not just rhetoric.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/dos7129.htm

/quote

Earth First! certainly does make other groups appear moderate: In the
name of environmental protection, Earth First! members have spiked
trees (a policy Earth First! renounced several years ago), filled
bulldozer gas tanks with sand, chained themselves to heavy industrial
equipment to prevent its use and, according to some corporate
executives, threatened to kill executives' children and spouses. In
1989, David Foreman and three other members of Earth First! were
arrested by the FBI on charges of conspiracy to sabotage nuclear
facilities. He left Earth First! in 1990 and the group has floundered
ever since.

/end quote

A thoroughly stupid essay in guilt by association. The more rabid
Greenie may well be pro AGW, but the converse doesn't hold.

Most people who believe in anthropogenic global warming also believe
in a gradual transition to a sustainable economy. Despite the
thoroughly dishonest denialist claims to the contrary, mainstream
opinion is that we could have much the same standard of living in a
fully sustainable economy that we have now; mass air transport seems
likely to be the only luxury that we'd have to give up - hydrogen
powered aircraft may be practicable, but they'd look very different
from today's airliners and would take a while to develop.

George Monbiot's book "Heat" discusses the matter at length. You
really ought to read it.

 

[[email protected]]

No.  He just was allowed more power over people.  We don't allow
greenies to have that much power over us.  If we did they would
wield that power in a way that makes Pol Pot look like a piker.

This may be your opinion. I doubt if it is widely shared.

Remember that you are talking about the lunatic fringe of the
environmental movement - basically people who are rabid enough that
normal environmentalists wouldn't touch them with a barge-pole.

Pol Pot would never have got into power in Cambodia if the US hadn't
destroyed the exisitng governement and installed an incompetent puppet
government which turned out to be no match for Pol Pot's Kymer Rouge.
In peace time, Pol Pot's psychological defects would have barred him
from power, but they served him well as a guerrilla leader

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/pot.html

 

[bw]

http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/publications/ralph/29_Precise.pdf

There is no doubt at all that the CO2 increases in the atmosphere and in
the oceans is coming from our burning fossil fuels. The isotopic signature
is clear and definitive.

ALL??? Obviously not, the fossil fuel burning is a fraction of the total
increase.

The amount of the atmospheric CO2 due to humans is less than 10 percent of
the total, the carbon cycle is massively larger than you imply.

The rest of your post is a regurgitation of hysterical special interest
psycosis. I doubt you understand any of the scientific arguments.

 

[[email protected]]

We've just been through a grand solar maximum with the sun
hyperactive. The insolation has been high and fairly constant.

The sun is now going to take a break.

If your paper is correct. But it refers to magnetic activity, and says
nothing about the heat outpu, which does vary - very slightly - with
sunspot number, but not nearly enough to have any pereceptible effect
on global temperature.

And it will be colder.

In your opinion, unsupported by anything in the paper you cite.

http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/2009-forecasting-j...

If you didn't have a consistent history of misunderstanding of the
material you post, I'd accuse you of lying.

As it is, you have just illustrated, once again, that you don't know
what you are talking about.

 

[[email protected]]

A side note: the CO2 concentrations have never been so high as they
are now. Ice drillings show that.

The ice core data only goes back half a million years. Geological data
says that CO2 levels were as high as they are now some 20 million
years ago, back before Antarctica was covered by an ice sheet.

<snip>

They've been even higher at times in the even more distant past.

 

[[email protected]]

The "historical" upper limit is an estimate that happens to match a physical
limit based on the major albedo regulating parameters, biological
(photosynthesis) on land, marine forams/diatoms, and the geological oceanto
land ratio. The earth will regulate itself, with or without industrial
activity.
The upper limit is a "brick wall"

Wrong. There are a couple of global extinctions where the global
temperatures got high enough to kill off the majority of land animals
- not just individuals but whole species and genera.

In one case the proximal cause seems to have been massive volcanic
activity going through coal beds that put a lot of carbon dioxide into
the atmosphere - it doesn't seem to have raised CO2 levels as fas as
we are doing, but it went on for long enough to thoroughly wreck the
biosphere.

This is a pointless paragraph, you should stick to science.
Humans have always adapted to any environmental changes, it's one of our
defining characteristics.

Here's hoping we have enough sense to adapt to the current
environmental change by slwoing down our contribution, rather than
having to live with the consequences.

 

[[email protected]]

Do you doubt the accounts of growing grapes in England and Norse
farmers in Greenland, or do you conjecture that it wasn't warm in
places like the Americas that had not been discovered yet?

Are you using Michael Mann's hockey stick figures? Stephen McIntyre
and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw
in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick.
McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used,
created some random test data that had, on average, no trends, fed
the random data into the Mann procedure, and out popped a hockey
stick shape!

Which doesn't mean that the hockey stick isn't real. Mann's curve has
been replicated by a dozen other researchers, all using statistical
tools that would satisfy McIntyre and McKitrick's idiosyncratic
criteria.

<snipped the rest, I'm heartily sick of plowing through rubbish from
denialist web-sites>