Conclusive physical evidence for AWG?

[JosephKK]

D-

Z- for purely subjective/political grading.

 

[JosephKK]

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?

Has anybody around here ever seen SPICE predict a component failure? I
have not found such a feature. If someone here has, please tell me
where to find that versions of SPICE. Send me a link to the input
file of the simulation as well, i want to see the device models.

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.

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.

Really? The match between solar output and temperature correlates
rather nicely.

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


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.


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



So much better to remain ignorant.


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.

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?

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.

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).

AGW has a few hundred kilometers to go after Michael Mann's fraud. To
begin to get credibility they have to disown those results.

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.

Piss on the CO2 stuff. Just the same, being more energy efficient is
a very good goal in itself. I am building up cash to make major
energy efficacy improvements in my dwelling.

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.

There is conclusive physical evidence.

No. There isn't. Never was. The omissions and other selective
tunings in the IPCC models is evidence enough, it is a massive fraud.

 

[[email protected]]

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?

==========================
Martin
let's refine the analogy a little more. The circuit has been
operating fine for a long time and everyone on there are many people
using. If you make some sensitive measurements, we can detect the
bias point may be changing a little. Some people built a PSPICE
simulation of the circuit (but no one really knows the details of the
circuit, that is the KEY difference between climate simulations and
circuit simulations) and PSPICE says the bias point is going to drift
even more in the future over the period of many many years. What do
we do today?
=================================







 1) CO2 CONCENTRATION

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.

========================
OK, I'll give you that, but CO2 has been higher in the past before
fossil fuels as well.. so higher levels of CO2 in not irreversible.
=========================

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.


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

======================
And so is water vapor... so CO2 may not even be an issue.
=======================

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.


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

=========================
So far the sea has risen what? a few mm per decade...?
When one little part of one pier in New York is under water, I will
agree with you..
==========================

So much better to remain ignorant.


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.




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?

====================
When you talk about cities being inundated, are you making a
reference to Katrina, I though even the AGW folks acknowledge that
Katrina has nothing to do with AGW, so what are you talking about?
=====================

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.




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).




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.


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.




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

=====================
OK now we get to the good part. I think I agree with you... the
important tissue is not if AGW is valid or not, but what is important
is what action we take.

OK we agree cap and trade is crazy. Good.

A carbon tax to promote efficiency, I agree that promoting efficiency
is good for reasons that have nothing to do with AGW. So the question
is how do you promote efficiency, if you use a carbon tax, WHO GETS
THE MONEY?

Clarify, are you for or against building sequestration plants?

Sea defenses? the sea is rising a few mm per decade.... yes I can
afford to wait awhile to see what happens...

Finally I want to thank you for actually addressing the points in my
post..

Mark

 

[JosephKK]

Actually it's like this; a flawed circuit or faulty code bite
you in the arse -- hard. The nature of the work enforces a
respect for testable reality. In areas where the universe does
not immediatly punish error (religion, global warming, politics)
the engineer is free to accept just about anything as "evidence"
and free to ignore actual evidence that he is wrong.

Kind of answers the question, but how does the dichotomy between
engineering reason and other thought patterns impact their psyche?

 

[JosephKK]

[email protected] wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:

Raveninghorde wrote:
Yet the world has been warmer than now.

True, but how rercently? =A0I have yet to find or be presented with
credible account of MWP being warmer than the past decade was.

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?

I note that you did not answer the above question.

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.

[Citation Needed]

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

Translation: "I don't have an answer to the arguments presented,
so I will close my eyes and pretend that they are not there."

Why do you persist in providing a podium for Slowman? Ignored,
Slowman's podium vanishes... as it should.

Maybe a petition to retract his PhD is in order?

...Jim Thompson

Motion seconded.

 

[JosephKK]

Has anybody around here ever seen SPICE predict a component failure? I
have not found such a feature. If someone here has, please tell me
where to find that versions of SPICE. Send me a link to the input
file of the simulation as well, i want to see the device models.

[snip]

Several Spice variants have "smoke" outputs. ALL Spice variants can
have macros written for them that do the same thing.

...Jim Thompson

Ok so far. Name some that have "smoke" outputs. Show me where to
find the macros.

 

[Martin Brown]

Too bad that the persons you designate as "egg heads" are working with
completely blocking eye coverage. Most anyone that can see, can see
that there is neither a wide clear straight road nor a brick wall. The
road to the future is curvy, poorly delineated to not at all,
marginally paved at best, and hugely occluded by controversy. But the
road will be made, step by step, and humanity will travel along it.

The Exxon sponsorred lies have really taken root. Too bad it will end
the same way as the wanking bankers paying themselves huge bonuses to
wreck the world economy fiasco. The UK government doesn't even have the
balls to tell them they cannot have last years bonuses (despite the fact
they would be unemployed if we had let market forces rule absolutely).

You really should look at the primary literature rather than depending
on America big oil and coal sponsored denialist propaganda.

The science of AGW is clear enough - you just have to look at it.

What we do about it is another matter entirely. On that I am more
inclined to agree with Exxon - I think cap and trade is a lousy policy.
A carbon tax would encourage better fuel economy and at least be a start
to get people seriously working on the no regrets energy efficiency
measures that have <5 years payback.

We made a better fist of it with the "Save It" campaign in the 1970's
when the acute oil price shocks hit western economies.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Martin Brown]

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:18:29 +0000, Martin Brown


Really? The match between solar output and temperature correlates
rather nicely.

It correlates very well indeed. However, so does GHG forcing and the two
taken together are both needed to explain the past 100 years of data.
Solar forcing alone is incapable of matching the last four decades of
data. Everyone agrees on this - even the scientific sceptics.

About half the increase over the past century has been due to natural
solar forcing, but the AGW component only really became non-negligible
from about 1970 onwards (and satellite monitoring rules out changes in
insolation). You may wish that it wasn't true but you cannot deny the
data. We are altering the composition of the atmosphere in a significant
way and it will bite us back.

AGW has a few hundred kilometers to go after Michael Mann's fraud. To
begin to get credibility they have to disown those results.

His "fraud" as you call it was a not particularly significant one. The
model fit would still be very similar with any other analysis method.
Again independent analysis of the climate data by the likes of Baliunas
and Soon come to rather similar conclusions. It is unfortunate that
Manns method of choice is amenable to this rather lazy form of attack.

Mendels genetics of inheritance of peas are too good to be true as well,
but we don't ignore his results just because they were slightly tweaked
to help make a point. It was only with the advent of modern statistical
tests that it became possible to pinpoint the fact that the results were
in too good agreement with theory.

The observational data supports the hypothesis that changes in both
solar luminosity and GHG forcing taken *together* can explain most of
the observed climatic trends. Neither on its own is anything like an
adequate fit. And the residuals (at least in the older detailed 1991 era
data that I have to hand) are bit high around major volcanic events, but
that doesn't detract from the overall systematic trends.

Piss on the CO2 stuff. Just the same, being more energy efficient is
a very good goal in itself. I am building up cash to make major
energy efficacy improvements in my dwelling.

Insulating the loft is an immediate win. But for as long as oil remains
dirt cheap people will squander the stuff in profligate ways. US car
fleet efficiency at below 20mpg has not improved since the days Henry
Ford. European and Japanese cars are now pushing double that fuel
efficiency as routine and three times that in the very best designs.

Carbon tax will work to get people to improve fuel economy. I seriously
doubt if anything else will even come close. Cap and trade will be an
unmitigated disaster along the lines of CDO swaps.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Martin Brown]

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:18:29 +0000, Martin Brown

[email protected] wrote:
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?
Has anybody around here ever seen SPICE predict a component failure? I
have not found such a feature. If someone here has, please tell me
where to find that versions of SPICE. Send me a link to the input
file of the simulation as well, i want to see the device models.

[snip]

Several Spice variants have "smoke" outputs. ALL Spice variants can
have macros written for them that do the same thing.

...Jim Thompson

Ok so far. Name some that have "smoke" outputs. Show me where to
find the macros.

Nice of Jim to come to my defence here. PSpice is one such with built in
Smoke for stress testing, operating mragins and secondary breakdown etc.

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

The oldest reference I can find to lumped thermal and self heating SPICE
models goes a lot further back in time than I imagined when I made the
comment. It even includes some basic suggestions for how to do it
longhand with sample networks as requested. It is in Intusofts
newsletter for July 1988!

http://www.intusoft.com/nlpdf/nl10.pdf

For IS-SPICE/386 with the tagline "faster than a VAX 11/780"
(a claim I find rather surprising and a bit unlikely)

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Slomanwrote:



Bill, besides the usual problems with citing Wikipedia when
asked for a scientific citation, the Wikipedia page you refer
to does *not* say that "global temperatures got high enough
to kill off the majority of land animals."

You seem to share Eeyore's enthusiasm for slective snipping, otherwise
known as text-chopping.

Quire apart from the fact that the Wikipedia article cites some 99
scientific articles which appear to come from the peer-reviewd
literature, my post went to to refer you to both Anthony Hallam and
Douglas R. Erwin who have, on their own, published enough in the peer-
reviewed literature to satisfy most peoples stomach for direct
scientific citations.

I don't mind you having an opinion that differs from mine, and
I don't mind (much) your handwaving and refusal to address
peer-reviewed data that refutes your theory,

In fact this lump of cheesy polemic falls flat on it face, because
you've used an unmarked snip to conceal the fact that I referred you
to two of the major players in the generation of the peer-reviewed
data in the area - I was not presenting anything remotely original,
merely referring you to current scieitific opinion.

but I very much
do mind the sort of intelectual dishonesty that causes you to
cite a webpage that doesn't say what you claim it says. That
is outside of the bounds of acceptable behavior, and I can no
longer trust anything you cite.  Stick a fork in me. I am done.

If you want intellectual dishonesty, you only have to look in the
mirror to come face to face with a peculiarly flamboyant practitioner
of the craft. You'd have to be singularly stupid to think you could
get away with it.

It may be that the Wikipedia article doesn't say that "global
temperatures got high enough
to kill off the majority of land animals." I certainly didn't claim
to be quoting from it when I first posted the claim and my claim
wasn't explicitly about the end-Permian global extinction. The story
about the end-Permian global extinctions - there seems to have been
more than one - is still complex and poorly understood. One of the
extinctions killed off most of the land animals, and another did for a
lot of marine species, and there's certainly evidence for dramatic
global warming while all this was going on. The wikipedia commentary
on the subject leans over backwards to be even-handed.

 

[[email protected]]

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.

[Citation Needed]

And supplied. And promptly snipped by this lying scumbag.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:

I note that you did not answer the above question.

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?

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.

[Citation Needed]

Try ^ Mann, M.E.; Zhang, Z., Hughes, M.K., Bradley, R.S., Miller,
S.K., Rutherford, S. and Ni, F. (2008). "Proxy-based reconstructions
of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past
two millennia". PNAS 105: 132520-13257. doi:10.1073/pnas.0805721105.

Translation: "I don't have an answer to the arguments presented,
so I will close my eyes and pretend that they are not there."

Wrong. I've seen it all before, You aren't the first sucker to be
taken in by denialist web-sites. You could find the answers via Google
Groups search if you were really interested - which you obviously
aren't.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
Raveninghorde wrote:
Yet the world has been warmer than now.
True, but how rercently? =A0I have yet to find or be presented with
credible account of MWP being warmer than the past decade was.
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?
I note that you did not answer the above question.
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.
[Citation Needed]
<snipped the rest, I'm heartily sick of plowing through rubbish from
denialist web-sites>
Translation: "I don't have an answer to the arguments presented,
so I will close my eyes and pretend that they are not there."

Why do you persist in providing a podium for Slowman?  Ignored,
Slowman's podium vanishes... as it should.

Maybe a petition to retract his PhD is in order?

                                      ...Jim Thompson

Motion seconded.

Note that Jim Thompson and krw haven't actually bothered to get Ph.D.s
temselves, and don't seem to understand the process, any more than
they understand the scientific evidence supporting anthropogenic
global warming.

 

[Martin Brown]

==========================
Martin
let's refine the analogy a little more. The circuit has been
operating fine for a long time and everyone on there are many people
using. If you make some sensitive measurements, we can detect the
bias point may be changing a little. Some people built a PSPICE
simulation of the circuit (but no one really knows the details of the
circuit, that is the KEY difference between climate simulations and
circuit simulations) and PSPICE says the bias point is going to drift
even more in the future over the period of many many years. What do
we do today?

No regrets energy efficiency measures would be a start. And with our
present power hungry computer systems we don't have much option but
nuclear power for electricity generation. Doubling the US car fleet fuel
efficiency would be trivial to do. European and Japanese cars already do

40mpg.

1) CO2 CONCENTRATION

========================
OK, I'll give you that, but CO2 has been higher in the past before
fossil fuels as well.. so higher levels of CO2 in not irreversible.
=========================

They are not irreversible. But the global temperature is strongly
correlated with sea level (and it cuts both ways if you add more CO2 to
the atmosphere it warms up and if you warm up the Earth by higher
insolation or altered orbital elements then the solubility of CO2 in the
oceans is reduced by warming and even more CO2 is released).

It probably cannot runaway on Earth provided that all 3 phases of water
coexist. But it would affect large areas of populous low lying land.

In a sense we are changing the atmosphere back to the time when the vast
warm wet tropical forests lay down the oil and coal that we are burning.
But we are doing it at a rate that is very fast compared to geological
timescales. It will take a while for the system to catch up with the CO2
we have already added to the atmosphere.

======================
And so is water vapor... so CO2 may not even be an issue.
=======================

CO2 is still an issue. This sort of claim is typical Exxon sponsored
denialist anti-science. Any polyatomic molecule will have some IR
absorbtion and so has a potential for GHG. Methane is also likely to
cause us serious grief if we melt the large areas of permafrost in the
arctic tundra. Short term it is a far more potent GHG than CO2 although
its halflife in the air is less than a decade (then it becomes CO2).

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025174618.htm

=========================
So far the sea has risen what? a few mm per decade...?
When one little part of one pier in New York is under water, I will
agree with you..
==========================

You may not have all that long to wait. I expect the erosion of storm
surge safety margins to be the most devastating short term consequence.
London would not look pretty it the Thames barrier was overtopped.

====================
When you talk about cities being inundated, are you making a
reference to Katrina, I though even the AGW folks acknowledge that
Katrina has nothing to do with AGW, so what are you talking about?
=====================

Katrina may or may not have had anything to do with AGW. It is entirely
possible that the storm would not have been quite so potent without the
very warm surface waters. Poor maintainence of the levees was a local
issue. But London and Tokyo have flood defences against storm surges
that will be marginal at best by the middle of this century.

=====================
OK now we get to the good part. I think I agree with you... the
important tissue is not if AGW is valid or not, but what is important
is what action we take.

Here I have a slight disagreement with you. From a hard scientific
perspective the issue is now almost settled. There will still be a few
die hard denialists that never accept the theory as valid (just as there
are still a few ranters against Einstien and Big Bang cosmology).

I actually think that Lindzen despite the fact that he is not well liked
in the pro-AGW and Green movements is actually making some important and
valid scientific points. Science works by challenging the status quo but
arguments must be based on sound scientific arguments and not fantasy.

OK we agree cap and trade is crazy. Good.

A carbon tax to promote efficiency, I agree that promoting efficiency
is good for reasons that have nothing to do with AGW. So the question
is how do you promote efficiency, if you use a carbon tax, WHO GETS
THE MONEY?

Research into improved global energy efficiency, related scientific and
engineering research. Subsidising installation of insulation in older
buildings. Subsidising smaller cars and taxing hopelessly inefficient
ones (heck the US gas guzzling SUV industry may yet go to the wall).

Clarify, are you for or against building sequestration plants?

I think it is probably worth building one or two as industrial scale
trials, but I don't think they are the solution. Nuclear electricity
generation is much more practical with our present technology base.

Sea defenses? the sea is rising a few mm per decade.... yes I can
afford to wait awhile to see what happens...

I live more than 50m above sea level doesn't affect me directly.

Finally I want to thank you for actually addressing the points in my
post..

I think it is the reponsibility of scientists to try and explain the
position. The public seldom get anything but "is" "isn't" soundbites on TV.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[[email protected]]

Graph here shows UK shows electricity demand peaking at 57GW in the
last 7 days:

http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Data/Realtime/Demand/Deman...

Wikipedia shows scheme generating 15GW

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

This is well over 20% of peak electrical demand in the UK.

Where did you get 0.6% from?

Energy demand includes such items as central heating - mostly supplied
by burning natural gas, and transportation - mostly supplied by
burning petrol and diesel. Do try to think before you post.

 

[[email protected]]

WTF does peak power have to do with anything? If they let all the water
piss out at once it could supply 100% of peak demand and flog some to
France as well  (for about 10 minutes).

There are at least 10 proposed schemes, the most cost effective of the
large scale schemes claims to generate 17TWh pa at a claimed cost of $25bn.
France reckons it can build 3GW nukes (good for around 21TWh pa?) for about
$4.1bn.

I have rather more faith in the claimed output, cost, and reliability of
nukes than an enormous theoretical tidal generation scheme the like of
which has never been constructed.

Besides tidal generation schemes are just sapping kinetic energy from the
earth and moon, you will all be sorry when midday lasts for 6 hours or the
moon comes hurtling towards us .
--

Whereas the water movements now generated by the tides (such as the
Severn Bore) are entirely friction free?
Grow up. The Severn barrage might make the moon spiral out (not in)
marginally faster, but you'd be hard put to measure the difference
over the potential life-span of our species (about 10 million years,
if we don't wreck the earth before then).

 

[[email protected]]

You are massively confused. I'm discussing planetary carbon cycle.
Total atmosphere contains 2400 gigatonnes, about 1/6 annual turnover means
400 gigatonnes of CO2 is exchanged from atmosphere to (and from) the
surface, including human sources. Total annual anthropogenic CO2 is 40
gigatonnes per year at most, including land use changes, fossil fuel is
less. Therefore, 10 percent of the total annual CO2 exchange is
anthropogenic.
These numbers are easily verified from any basic climate source.

That's one way of looking at it - it doesn't tell you anything useful,
but it does allow to make silly claims.
The crucial fact is that we have injected some 900 gigatons of carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial
Revolution and another 900 gigatons into the oceans, and this had
already warmed the planet by about 0.7C and will warm it more in the
future as the oceans warm up and start ejecting the extra carbon
dioxide.

I don't care what your opinions are, I could easily show data that support
the null hypothesis that there is no difference in surface temperature from
1908 to 2008. See alt. global warming newsgroup.

With the "totally reliable peer-reviewed published" data you found on
the Oregon Institue of Science and Medicine web-site?

I too have read Darrell Huff's "How to Lie with Statistics". I'm not
interested in playing your silly games.

 

[[email protected]]

Has anybody around here ever seen SPICE predict a component failure? I
have not found such a feature.  If someone here has, please tell me
where to find that versions of SPICE.  Send me a link to the input
file of the simulation as well, i want to see the device models.

Check out heat dissipation within one device.

AGW has a few hundred kilometers to go after Michael Mann's fraud.  To
begin to get credibility they have to disown those results.

Michael Mann didn't commit any kind of fraud. McIntyre didn't like his
statistical techniques, which isn't the same thing at all, and the
hockey stick curve has been replicated repeatedly since McIntyre's
objections were made public.
The only fraud around is in your claim that curve was ever
invaldidated.

Piss on the CO2 stuff.  Just the same, being more energy efficient is
a very good goal in itself.  I am building up cash to make major
energy efficacy improvements in my dwelling.




No.  There isn't.  Never was.  The omissions and other selective
tunings in the IPCC models is evidence enough, it is a massive fraud.

That claim is in itself fraudulent. The fact that you were ignorant
enough to fall for it when you ran into it on a denialist web-site
tells us all we need to know about your judgement.

 

[Raveninghorde]

Energy demand includes such items as central heating - mostly supplied
by burning natural gas, and transportation - mostly supplied by
burning petrol and diesel. Do try to think before you post.

Bill, lie down and have a rest. You've lost it - again.

I only ever referred to electricity. The Severn barrage is about
electricity. My post had nothing to do with other UK energy
requirments.

The post I replied to mentioned various numbers and I asked where one
came from.

 

[[email protected]]

Bill, lie down and have a rest. You've lost it - again.

I only ever referred to electricity.

But the post you were responding to referred to total energy, whch is
a point you failed to take on board.

The Severn barrage is about electricity.
My post had nothing to do with other UK energy
requirements.

But you were replying to a post from a slightly less blinkered
individual.