[POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2017, 02:48:53 pm
content: Perhaps there's not a 97% consensus among engineers (not even those in Oregon) WRT AGW, let's find out, shall we?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 06, 2017, 03:20:09 pm
content: This was a ridiculous poll. Only giving the option of "absolutely certain", and "I smell bullshit"The IPCC themselves put AGW generally as "very likely", which if you bother to read the report footnotes (most people don't), "very likely" has a specific meaning which is >=90%.It does not say "virtually certain" which means >=99%.Warning, if this thread tuns into a mess it will be shut down.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2017, 03:38:51 pm
content: The American Physical Society says "the evidence is incontrovertible":

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2017, 03:42:10 pm
content: First had to Google what AGW is. Then voted with the caveat of a very loose definition. Climate change is somewhere between "It is a little warmer" and the "the seas are going to rise by many dozen meters". Also the caveat that all extrapolations are a crapshoot. As long as the models are right and all of the assumptions stay the same.It is all a recipe for whoever wants to to look back 50 years from now and say they were right.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 06, 2017, 03:50:54 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on May 06, 2017, 03:38:51 pmYou can't beat a hugely reputable scientist who was very anti-AGW (one of the ones the anti-AGW community trumpeted in fact) actually going to the trouble to form his own group to re-analyse all the data himself and came to the conclusion that's it real. Oops, how embarrassing for the skeptics

author: daveyk
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2017, 04:37:58 pm
content: I blame it on the aliens

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2017, 05:04:07 pm
content: little brainfood/snackwhy is greenland called greenland ? and why it was inhabited and abandoned many times again and again in the distant past ? probably caused by re-occurring climate changes , so it was inhabited during warmer periods and abandoned during colder ones ?we have only a century worth of temperature recordings, but many millennia of existence... probably it's not a bad idea to correlate with archaeological evidence. Also the small population of the very distant past must have been very advanced that they triggered a climate change to melt-down the ice-agei'm not saying we're not contributing... we definitely do... but we're definitely not triggering the change !

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2017, 05:12:16 pm
content: Hahaha, Dave, are you kidding me? You've added a third option!You now provide TWO pro AGW options to choose from? Why not add say ten more, just in case?That's not longer a clear cut yes/no poll. Choose the wording as you like Dave, but must leave just two options, IMO.

author: Domagoj T
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2017, 06:49:14 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on May 06, 2017, 05:12:16 pmThe answers are not the problem, the question is.Nothing is "sure", so by default the answer can be nothing but "no", whichever words you want to use.That is not to say that anthropogenic global warming (that is what we're talking about, right?) is not occurring, or that the global warming that is occurring is not anthropogenic, just that we can never be certain.However, all the data we have point that way, and if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and has face like a duck, it's most likely a duck*.Instead of complaining about Dave adding another answer as an option, perhaps you should work on the question itself.* It could also be our supreme reptilian overlord in a duck body.

author: Ian.M
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2017, 06:58:45 pm
content: If you want to post a poll, you should avoid taking sides till the results are in - unless of course you aren't interested in the answer but just want ego-stroking support for your own bias. IMHO the sooner someone Godwins this thread so Dave is forced to lock it the better.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2017, 07:18:38 pm
content: This won't end well.And the poll, regardless of the outcome, will be meaningless, for several reasons. Most forum members will probably wisely avoid this thread (Yes, I know, the irony of my response here). But, the most obvious problem is that anyone can easily game it by opening multiple new accounts and voting more than once.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2017, 07:44:27 pm
content: Quote from: Ian.M on May 06, 2017, 06:58:45 pmIt's Dave who has "taken sides" not me! First in the vidjeo and then in this very same thread. It's a controversial matter thus the controversial poll optionsI just don't think the answer is as clear-cut as Dave seems to believe, not even close.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2017, 08:19:27 pm
content: As soon as you are talking about believe then any discussion is pointless. The fact is that there is very little that can and will be done no matter what cause & effect analysis you throw at it. Getting a wamer global climate is a reality (*) and for some people this will mean radical changes. Adapt and live with it. After all earth is a continuously changing environment and thinking it will stay the same or can be shaped is just ignorance. As an example I could point to some maps which show the radical changes the country I live in underwent during the last 1000 years.(*) It cannot be denied that the average temperature has been increasing steadily for about a century.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2017, 08:30:42 pm
content: I have no clue what "reality" you talking about.

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2017, 08:36:58 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 06, 2017, 08:19:27 pmcorrect, and we have ONLY the data from that very last century.. no temperature recording are available from earlier.

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2017, 08:43:56 pm
content: There is little doubt in my mind that political ideology has corrupted the science on this topic.In reality any ideology is infectious to good science.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2017, 08:50:32 pm
content: If you go to Google Earth and look at heavily glaciated areas you can see the effect of global warming by using the time slider. The earliest photos are in the 1980s (usually landsat) and they have enough resolution to see where glaciers existed 50 yrs ago. In many cases (glaciers in mountains farther south than the Arctic.) entire glaciers are now just gone. Totally gone.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2017, 08:51:08 pm
content: Quote from: rob77 on May 06, 2017, 08:36:58 pmThat doesn't really matter. It is getting warmer NOW and the how and why isn't relevant. Besides that it has been well established that warmer and colder periods have passed so there are recordings from earlier just not down to the exact year and centigrade.BTW: Interesting article about using temperature/climate indicators to determine the temperature over the last 1000 yearshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 06, 2017, 08:55:40 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on May 06, 2017, 08:50:32 pmThis only says things have gotten warmer - no information at all on what the multiple sources of that change are and what their respective influences are.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2017, 09:19:04 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on May 06, 2017, 08:50:32 pmOTOH it is also true that until ~200 thousand years ago everything everywhere north of the mediterranean was an inmense ice desert just like the polar caps (and the Sahara desert back then was green and had lots of fresh water), all of Europe and China and Russia the USA and Canada... etc. De-icing has been the trend for the last 200 thousand years, since long before we began to burn any fuels.I enjoy listening to both sides of the debate

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 06, 2017, 10:20:44 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on May 06, 2017, 05:12:16 pmYes, because the only pro option was "Absolutely certain" which is ridiculous. Even the IPCC are not "absolutely certain". Go read the report.Have more than one option will not skew the result.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 06, 2017, 10:21:54 pm
content: Quote from: retrolefty on May 06, 2017, 08:43:56 pmThat might be true, but it doesn't make it wrong.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2017, 11:49:30 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 06, 2017, 10:21:54 pmAnd it also presumes that the vast majority of climate scientists worldwide are all on one side of the political spectrum and base their science on this. There is zero evidence this is true.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 12:06:00 am
content: Still there many 'scientific' reports which have a strong bias towards the outcome which would please the people who paid for the report. If one report claims A and the other report claims B then which one is right? Especially when it comes to things like weather and climate the answer just isn't clear.I just looked up a summary of the IPCC report and it basically sums up trends which where observed and which are likely to continue. Only history will tell if AGW is some kind of mass extinction event or an incovenience.

author: gildasd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 12:23:18 am
content: I work on a big boat laying big electrical cables in the bottom of the sea.Where we are laying the current one, there was ice scrapping the bottom less than 30 years ago, making such things not really feasable. Nowadays, about enough to cool a martini floats about.And it's the same everywhere, now new ships have bigger coolers to compensate.For me, it's not a maybe, but something I'm reminded of daily when i do the temp readings of the ship.

author: Hensingler
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 12:30:22 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on May 06, 2017, 09:19:04 pmPeak glaciation of the last ice age was 22,000 years ago many places were still under a km of ice 11,000 years ago. Most of the land in northern Europe is still rising at about 1cm/year recovering from the weight of ice being removed.

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 12:33:47 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 06, 2017, 10:20:44 pmWell so far 1/3 of the responders to the poll voted for ridiculous.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 02:13:24 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 07, 2017, 12:06:00 amThere is practically no chance it's a mass extinction event. At least in any time frame that would concern us, our children, or our children's children.Even the most dire model predictions are not mass extinction.

author: HackedFridgeMagnet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 02:15:08 am
content: Ridiculous, ambiguous, loaded title and poll.http://www.gesa.org.au/about-gesa/australian-gastroenterology-week-agw/.Typical of Trump style alternate facts.Apparently this thread is about climate change.Well the way I see it is some people study climate change, some people don't. Some people have a direct monetary interested in the outcome of this debate, some people don't.So who do you believe?I believe the people who do the science with the greatest integrity. That seems to put me in agreement with the bulk of the Scientific community at least here in Aus.For me I am somewhat worried about climate change and believe the risks should be reduced at the expense of economic growth.I believe when our generation dies we should leave the ecosystem of the Earth as close to the way it was before industrialisation as we can.Then the future generations than Fc*k it up as they please.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 02:25:20 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 07, 2017, 02:13:24 amWell if you use the standard definition of a mass extinction (a period of less than about two million years in which at least 70 percent of species go extinct), we are currently undergoing the 6th great mass extinction (aka the Holocene extinction or anthropocene extinction) and global warming is just getting started.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 02:40:43 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 07, 2017, 02:25:20 amMost caused by habitat destruction rather than climate change. We chopped down the vast majority of forest in Europe long before the CO2 based AGW theory came onto the horizon, even before anthropogenic climate change theories period ... although those predate CO2 based theories by centuries.CO2 isn't the most impacting way we know how to change the natural environment, even if the IPCC is correct. We are a mass extinction event.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 02:51:11 am
content: Quote from: Marco on May 07, 2017, 02:40:43 amAgreed.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 03:07:48 am
content: A significant amount of pollution is caused by people driving cars to work, so in 20 or 30 years when far more is automated and much more work is done remotely over the Internet there will be a very large reduction in car caused pollution because far fewer people will be driving daily. Also, a great many people will have much smaller or even no incomes so they will have a smaller energy footprint. The changes will be the biggest in developed countries. This has been the consensus for decades.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 03:12:00 am
content: Two words:Methane Clathrate

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 03:12:57 am
content: Quote from: cdev on May 07, 2017, 03:12:00 amOh no you didn't!

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 08:08:42 am
content: I've given up trying to have an adult conversation about the subject of Global Warming, Climate Change etc... with most people. You generally get two sides of the camp, either people believe that science has proven everything about climate change is real and the world is going to end or it's all complete horse shit and the Greenies need to quit it.Very few people can actually shut the hell up and let the experts (who are much smarter about the topic) do the testing, experimenting and arguing for us. Science continues to improve and data sets are getting larger. What we think we know today may be different tomorrow.I find people with a strong (and often biased) view one way or another bloody irritating as no matter what anyone says, their minds are already made up.If you want to argue about climate change, I think you're best off not doing it on an EE forum (which hardly belongs in the "EEVblog specific" section). It'll only end in tears for everyone.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 09:57:59 am
content: Back in the day the establishment were the earth flatters, it took quite a long time but in the end the skeptics won.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 11:43:46 am
content: Quote from: rob77 on May 06, 2017, 05:04:07 pmWe don't know.And you're claiming it's because it was sooooo green and leafy when they arrived then you're making a hugeASSumption.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 11:48:46 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on May 07, 2017, 08:08:42 amYep. It's interesting that very few people would claim to be able to turn a bucket of sand into a cellphone or perform rocket surgery buteverybodyis a climate expert.(all you need is ten minutes watching FOX news then go outside in the garden and say "yup!")

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 12:09:06 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on May 07, 2017, 08:08:42 amThat's because the government and media constantly bash that into people's heads so hard that they're basically forced to have an opinion about it. You can't not have an opinion on something everybody talks about everyday.

author: AF6LJ
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 12:32:53 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 06, 2017, 03:20:09 pmYou can always tell what the agenda of the pollster is by how they ask their questions.

author: X
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 01:01:22 pm
content: Agenda or otherwise, arguing about global warming seems pointless when so much pollution and waste is being scattered all over the place thanks to rubbish like planned obsolescence, and political rubbish like RoHS, banning incandescent light globes, and similar kinds of "green" "eco" junk policies implemented in spite of insufficient evidence/research supporting it.Global warming and climate change is really the last thing to worry about. Not many people get into fights over the situation regarding environmental pollution, but they have a barney over a bunch of cow burps and electric farts.I'm even "greener" than the greenies, but being "green" also involves being sensible and practical.

author: mleyden
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 03:32:01 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 07, 2017, 02:13:24 amThis is most likely true, however there could be very rapid changes in environment that will have huge societal effects. For example, the Gulf Stream could alter its course, plunging Northern Western Europe into very cold, Canadian style winters - stuff we are not prepared for. Plankton seed clouds over the Atlantic (https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-ticker/blooming-phytoplankton-seed-clouds-southern-ocean) and they could move / disappear as the water gets less saline due to the melting ice. Basically, it is such a complex, inter-dependent system, we don't quite know what will happen! Also there is much evidence to suggest that a lot of immigration into Europe / unrest in Middle East / North Africa is partially caused by drought.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 06:00:10 pm
content: Quote from: mleyden on May 07, 2017, 03:32:01 pmThere'seven greater evidencethat it's caused by population growth and the resulting fossil water depletion and fragile economies. Once again, climate change is a drop in the pond compared to other ways we have of depleting our environment.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 06:07:06 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on May 07, 2017, 06:00:10 pmThe difference is that climate change is global. It is also irreversible on any human time scale (though the same can be said about fossil water depletion).Of course overpopulation is the root problem. For an ex 1980s punk rock fan like me and given the current political climate, it brings to mind this song...

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 06:12:40 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 07, 2017, 06:07:06 pmClimate change is also a constant, a big rock can fall from the sky, big rifts on the earth crust can tear open ... shit happens.If we create a global population load and agricultural/distribution system which absolutely requires a near constant climate to not face systemic collapse then we'll face systemic collapse sooner or later. Population growth is making the human world far too fragile.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 06:41:54 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on May 07, 2017, 06:12:40 pmBut therateof change is important. Biological systems (including humans and the species we depend on) can easily adapt to the slower rate changes in atmospheric CO2 and temperature (warmer or cooler) of the sort which have occurred over the past 50 million years or so. Butifyou accept the current models of what will result if current trends in temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels continue then it is not at all clear fast enough adaptation will be possible. And of course depending on the end point for temperature and CO2 level rise, it's conceivable that if those trends continued the earth would no longer have an environment compatible with large mammalian life. Even if one feels that the probability of that outcome is low, it seems rational to do what's possible to make it even lower.But, it's very difficult for humans to think in those sorts of timescales and even harder to make sacrifices in the present that may have a beneficial impact in the distant future. So, regardless of any political outcomes or societal changes, I'm fairly certain we'll just continue our current fossilized sunlight binging until the last drop of affordable oil and last shovel full of affordable coal is burned. Party on Garth

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 06:56:11 pm
content: The theories about the precedent of the speed of change are extremely shaky, they had to make the MWP/LIA disappear just to make it work for historical time ... and the evidence we have for everything else is far from conclusive (also it provides evidence that CO2 change can lag temperature change by thousands of years, suggesting there are much bigger forces at play).

author: German_EE
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 07:01:50 pm
content: I like to think that there are some intelligent people on this board, with that in mind it's interesting to see that so far the three options are about equal.I voted 'something fishy'Why?Firstly, although I have seen the evidence of global warming, I am not 100% certain that mankind is the source. Secondly, we know that there has been a warm Earth in the past, and our climate may therefore be cyclical in nature.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 07:15:13 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on May 07, 2017, 06:12:40 pmAnd there's more:

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 08:25:22 pm
content: Quote from: German_EE on May 07, 2017, 07:01:50 pmIt is. Based on information from ice drillings it has been determined that there is a sharp rise and fall (needle shaped spike in the graph) of CO2 levels every 40000 years or so. Currently we are inside such a peak. Add the additional CO2 due to burning of fossil fuel to that and it is no wonder that CO2 levels are as high as they are at the moment.What worries me more however is the fossil fuels running out quickly due to increased wellfare in general (oil consumption isn't getting lower). IMHO this is already leading to geopolitical instability which makes it urgent to switch over to sustainable energy sources. AGW is at the very least a good doom scenario to get the general public to reduce energy consumption and invest in sustainable energy sources.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 08:50:44 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 07, 2017, 08:25:22 pmMe too. And I don't see how can we rob 140.000 TWh (aprox. global energy use) from the sun with the current technology, even though it's ~ 7800x as much. Covering the entire planet with PVs surely isn't a good idea, nor even possible. If we ever begin to run out of our current best ever source of cheap and abundant energy (oil) we're going to have to reconsider nuclear power, it seems to me, perhaps.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 08:56:00 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on May 07, 2017, 08:50:44 pmThat's not even close. Physicist Tom Murphy did an excellent overview of alternative energy sources a few years agoon his excellent Do The Math Blog.By his calculations, Covering only 0.5% of land area with 15% efficient PV panels provides the annual energy needs of our society.Of course the issue is solar PV's intermittency and the necessary storage.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 09:21:07 pm
content: Add to that PV panels can very likely get so cheap their cost will become irrelevant (I'd say as likely as the next generation fast reactors being commercially viable). The amount of silicon truly necessary is very little and there's the Perovskites, also we don't really need silver or ITO (nickel nanowire mesh) or even glass (3M has a polymer barrier material they say will last 3 decades). The biggest challenge will be to reduce the costs of high cycle energy storage by an order of magnitude over the current state of the art.All in all I think Nuclear will have a hard time competing in a couple of decades, assuming technological civilization doesn't collapse. Which I don't consider entirely unlikely either.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 09:32:11 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on May 07, 2017, 09:21:07 pmNor do I. It may be a "tail risk" as traders say, but so is a house fire. I find it fascinating that more people don't consider it.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 10:18:02 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 07, 2017, 08:56:00 pmThink a little more about what that "only" in your sentence really means.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 10:28:25 pm
content: Quote from: German_EE on May 07, 2017, 07:01:50 pmThe effect of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't hard to understand.Quote from: German_EE on May 07, 2017, 07:01:50 pmHow does that justify dumping billions of tons of CO2 into the air today?

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 10:57:49 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 07, 2017, 10:28:25 pmNor that after a glaciation t rises and the ice disappears.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 11:02:52 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 07, 2017, 10:28:25 pmHave you used your car today? Or a bus? Or any electricity? Have you eaten any food? Did you take a shower today? These are the reasons why.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2017, 11:03:35 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 07, 2017, 10:28:25 pmAnd where did that CO2 come from?

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2017, 12:48:10 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on May 07, 2017, 10:57:49 pmOr if the sentence order implied their temporal order, after the glaciation the ice disappears and it rises.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 08, 2017, 03:55:54 am
content: I can support the replacement of fossil fuels with renewable alternatives on the basis of pollution alone, closely followed by the need to establish power sources that do not rely on a finite supply (at least on a million year timeline).This is just common sense and can help make everyone happier, if done in a socially considerate way.

author: meeder
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2017, 04:21:07 am
content: Quote from: rob77 on May 06, 2017, 05:04:07 pmVery simple. There are two possible explanations for the name. There is the legend and there is the simple misspelling.http://ancientstandard.com/2010/12/17/how-greenland-got-its-name/The name Greenland has nothing to do with it being green.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2017, 07:35:51 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on May 08, 2017, 03:55:54 amThis is a bit of a slippery slope argument because a lot of equipment (batteries, solar panels) involved in sustainable energy take a lot of energy and (toxic) materials to make. The pollution gets out of your back yard but it doesn't go away.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 08, 2017, 07:44:01 am
content: That's being a bit short-sighted, IMO.The energy consideration is irrelevant, since the energy source will become a renewable one.As for the toxicity issue, you can be sure RoHS and every other environment sensitive campaign will close in on any gaps.

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 08, 2017, 07:58:51 am
content: I do also think that the pollution due to fuels with current filtering/cleaning technologies is actually minor compared to other more lasting and harmful pollution sources (that contaminate soils, water,...). It's just more visible, so of course it's used for its convenient advantage of allowing to divert all looks to it so the rest can be forgotten about.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2017, 08:26:51 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on May 08, 2017, 07:44:01 amThat is assuming the country where the manufacturing takes place has any environmental protection laws which they enforce. Take China for example where that isn't happening.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2017, 08:48:56 am
content: Quote from: Marco on May 08, 2017, 12:48:10 amLOL, t == temperature not "it".

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2017, 02:32:27 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 08, 2017, 08:26:51 amYes. But you do have cheap pcb's due to the lack of Chinese environmental protections.

author: daveyk
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2017, 02:36:21 pm
content: Yes. But you do have cheap pcb's due to the lack of Chinese environmental protections.We can enjoy the cheap products and still complain about Chinese destroying the environment. Out of sight and out of mind.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2017, 05:40:42 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 08, 2017, 07:35:51 amThe trick is to make/transport them using renewable energy. If you do that then the energy problem solves itself.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2017, 05:41:54 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 08, 2017, 08:26:51 amGive Trump a few more months and neither will the USA. This appears to be his plan for competing with China - remove all environmental protection and minimum wage laws.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2017, 06:10:41 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 07, 2017, 11:03:35 pmThe CO2 is largely captured by plants and converted into other compounds, then the plants are burned or converted to other things such as fossil fuels and when those substances are burned the CO2 is released back into the atmosphere. The issue there is that the fossil fuels are like an enormous battery that has been charged up over millions of years and we are draining it at a rate orders of magnitude faster than it can be recharged. Eventually these substances will become so rare that it is cost prohibitive to burn them as fuel and we're going to have to make some big lifestyle adjustments. I'm not the least bit confident that we won't all wipe each other out fighting over whatever resources remain though.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2017, 06:42:07 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on May 08, 2017, 06:10:41 pmYep. As I've said before: It's as if humanity won the lottery when we discovered fossil fuels. But instead of using our winnings wisely and modestly, focusing on investment for future generations and uses for which their is no known substitute, we've been on a 100 year spending binge - the equivalent of spending the bulk of our lottery winnings on "hookers and blow"

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2017, 07:55:01 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 08, 2017, 06:42:07 pmSounds like quite a productive use for it.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2017, 09:05:03 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on May 08, 2017, 06:10:41 pmStill some amount of that stored CO2 (which was ofcourse taken from the atmosphere) had to be released. At the beginning of the industrial revolution the CO2 levels where very low for plant life. But I think we have to be realistic: in the end all the fossil fuels will be burned.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2017, 10:01:10 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 08, 2017, 09:05:03 pmI think there's a lot more coal in the ground than you realize.Still, there'smany timesmore renewable energy available than we can ever use. The main thing stopping us from using it is politics and paid-for business interests.(ie. a few rich people who won't make it to a billion dollars each if we stop burning that stuff)If governments put the same effort into building solar/wind plants as they put into (eg.) warmongering then energy would be a solved problem a few years from now.Plus: Cheap energy would enable a whole new era of manufacturing processes. It's a win-win situation for everybody, including those billionaires. The problem is they'd have to get off their asses, put aside their political differences and generally make an effort to improveother people'slives, not just their own.

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 09, 2017, 10:10:20 am
content: I have a theory.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2017, 11:01:28 am
content: Quote from: Muttley Snickers on May 09, 2017, 10:10:20 amTL;DR;

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2017, 11:04:52 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 09, 2017, 10:01:10 amWe are still an order of magnitude removed from where PV/storage needs to be for PV to be completely self funding (ie. cheaper than fuelling fossil fuel electricity plants). Never mind the distribution network build out necessary (we need lots of HVDC).QuoteMaybe the US could do it in two decades with a moonshot type effort. Countries which don't themselves have access to good high sunday deserts, never no way. To put it in perspective you could build build many dozens Trump walls for that kind of expenditure of manpower and natural resources, something plenty of people consider outright impossible to do at the moment ...QuoteIt's not cheap with the tech we have.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2017, 11:20:49 am
content: Quote from: Marco on May 09, 2017, 11:04:52 amWhy does it have to be self-funding? There wasn't any thought of cost when all those nuclear bomb factories (aka "power stations") were built in the 1950s. There wasn't much thought of cost when the invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan was planned, and that's gone into many trillions of dollars. Trump is busy preparing the country for another bank bailout, etc.Once PV reaches a critical mass then the panels will befreeto manufacture/transport. Their own output can be used to make more panels. The cost of building a "PV-panel city" in a suitable desert area (lots of sand and sunshine!) is tiny compared to all the stuff listed above and once it's built you can have solar panels being trucked out of it 24/7 for free. What's stopping us?

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2017, 11:33:45 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 09, 2017, 11:20:49 amIt doesn't work that way until they are cheaper than fuelling a fossil fuel planet.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2017, 11:42:00 am
content: Quote from: Marco on May 09, 2017, 11:33:45 am?? A fossil fuel plant will never befreeto run.Plus: A big cost of making PV panels is melting the sand. You can do that with mirrors in a desert area, at much higher efficiency then going to electricity and back.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2017, 12:04:51 pm
content: PV and their infrastructure has service costs, limited lifetimes of components and their associated write off costs as well. Costs which are for the moment higher than fuelling the fossil fuel plants, which you'll need to maintain as backup any way. That's why until PV is cheaper than fuel it's not really economical without subsidy.It can certainly get there, in fact I think it's likely that storing and retrieving PV generated electricity for a day or so will eventually be cheaper than fuelling a fossil fuel plant. At which point you could really go PV "for free" almost entirely.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2017, 12:28:29 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on May 09, 2017, 12:04:51 pmYes, but that'stoday, where solar plants are purely used for electricity production.I'm talking about building a solar-powered PV-panel production factory. This changes the economics significantly because such a plant has two outputs, electricityandsolar panels.There has to be a tipping point where the panels become free to produce. Wages, transport costs, etc., are paid for by selling the electricity produced by those panels. Eventually a s tipping point will be reached where the whole system becomes self sustaining and electricity costs will plummet.Yes, it will cost money to build but:a) It's a worthwhile investment, much better than warmongering and bailing out wall-street bankers.b) Not doing this, continuing to burn fossil fuels, has a much bigger long term cost (90% likely to be catastrophic for the economy).c) The first country to do it will have a massive manufacturing advantage over the rest of the world and will easily recover the startup cost.

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 09, 2017, 01:23:25 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 09, 2017, 12:28:29 pmIndeed, and once someone has proven it works others will fight to follow. So what are you waiting for to start such a project then? Probably the same as everybody else, no motivation to take risks and do the tremendous amount of work it will take to succeed when we've got something that just works so well and allows us to stay comfortably sit in our chairs and watch the world go.We're clever enough to know we should stop using fossil fuels while there still is a large quantity of them remaining so as to avoid releasing all that carbon, yet we're so lazy and happy to keep using what was built decades ago for minimal cost instead of investing in something new so it will stay at the "we should" stage until there is no other choice (i.e. we'll have used them to the last drop). That or there's a massive worldwide conflict, and we destroy so much of our current world that when comes the time to rebuild we'll do it with new generation technology/sources because investing in rebuilding something that depends on a known limited supply woudl be stupid - again a "no other choice" situation.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 09, 2017, 02:22:22 pm
content: Be practical.A paradigm shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy is a MASSIVE undertaking for 21st century society. Aside from the foundation of our current level of convenience, there are the power brokers that control these resources. You are not going to have much success in completely replacing their industry while they still have huge investments in it. You are going to have to let them buy into the new technology at a rate that permits them to transition while still retaining the leverage - and returns - that they want. Either that, or give them the time to exit without taking a bit hit.This will be supported by the inertia of the transition of infrastructure - there's just so much to change.During this period, fossil fuel usage will continue to increase, but at a slowing rate until it reaches a point where increasing energy demand is matched by increasing renewable energy supply. We aren't at this point yet - but it feels like it's on the horizon ... somewhere. Once we get past this point, fossil fuel usage will start dropping as renewable energy becomes the prevalent source.It's going to take time - and during that time, fossil fuels will still be used. While the financial impact on society may be uncomfortable along the way, so long as the fossil fuels hold out until we have viable sustainability options in place across the board, that impact will remain modest. Things will go critical if we run out of cost-effective fossil fuel sources before we get there.One further point .... while we currently talk about the energy cost of manufacture (particularly in regards to the green house gas emissions) this cost can be completely ignored once manufacture is powered by renewable energy that doesn't involve CO2generation.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2017, 02:28:03 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on May 09, 2017, 11:04:52 amNowadays more countries could work together and come up with the cash and the knowledge. However in some areas technological development seems to have stalled. Satellites are shot into space using technology invented 80 years ago.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2017, 05:23:58 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 09, 2017, 02:28:03 pmKnowledge ... that's another problem, if government tried to do something like this it would basically have to get out of the Bourne convention to head off all the IP jackals looking for billions of pounds of flesh.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2017, 05:39:20 pm
content: The biggest problem is that people get set in their ways, want instant gratification and think that anything "green" is some kind of left wing liberal conspiracy. I still know people who use incandescent bulbs because they're "cheaper", they are utterly unable or unwilling to understand the concept of electricity being the vast majority of the cost of the lamps, making CFL and now LED bulbs much cheaper in the long run. These are the same sort of people who will drive around for a half hour burning up a couple dollars worth of fuel trying to find a gas station that's 3 cents cheaper per gallon. The same sort of people who buy a bunch of crap with their credit card, only looking at what it does to the monthly payment without understanding the total cost of the purchase including interest. There are a LOT of people like this.

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2017, 05:48:30 pm
content: QuoteSo let me get that straight. The same kind of person that would drive for 1/2 hour to save less then a dollar for gas would be the same kind of person that doesn't understand interest cost on their credit card? I'm not buying it and think you just made that up.Edit:My point is that I feel you are taking quite different (but true) stereotypes and applying it to a specific person. Still not buying it.

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 09, 2017, 05:55:19 pm
content: No, tothinkthey save because the displayed price is lower, when they actually pay more due to the cost of getting there they're unable to take into account. Just like they don't realize they pay more due to credit card interest.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2017, 06:11:41 pm
content: I thought everyone would have met someone like that, there's a term for it "Penny wise and pound foolish", if you don't know anyone who fits that description, it may be you.I was friends with a guy for years who was a textbook example until I finally couldn't take it anymore. He always seemed to be down on his luck. Eventually I realized that it wasn't luck at all, it was repeated bad choices and then he would blame anything and everything but his own poor choices for his situation. He was so cheap that he would end up spending far more, constantly wasting money in the long term thinking he was getting a good deal in the short term. He was one of those idiots who fall for the furniture ads that say pay no interest until some far off sounding date, and then he'd act surprised when that date came and suddenly it was time to pay the piper and he was broke. He simply did not understand the concept of compounding interest, didn't understand simple things like the price per unit that is in small print on grocery store tags. Yeah that bottle is cheaper, but you use a lot of it and the bottle that costs 50% more gives you double the product! *blank stare*I'm not making this up.

author: jnissen
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2017, 06:28:31 pm
content: If AlGore is behind it you can guarantee that it's 100% bullshit.

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 09, 2017, 06:53:01 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on May 09, 2017, 06:11:41 pmIt's incredibly common, much more than one would think, and marketing departments are making full use of it. That's the very reason we get small packaging sizes of most stuff nowadays, make an extra buck on the educationally challenged for whom the only thing that will pop in their mind is "hey it's cheaper"! When they also play the "cute" factor even people who know and understand have a hard time resisting the "hey it's new and different!" BS. I've recently seen "airline-sized coke cans" in stores, with some BS marketing of "always have one on you" or something, didn't check precisely since it drove me crazy before I got to that, but it was like 3x the price of a normal can holding twice the amount i.e. 6x more expensive. But they were packaged in a big pack of 40 or so, so you see the price and think "but I get 40!!! cans, a normal pack is only 12!" and it works.I hate this world. I hate being aware of these ubiquitous scams. I used to have a company and manufacture/market some cool stuff, but when I realized this, other forms of scamming people and what other business owners will do to make a buck and that I had to compete against it wiped the desire to participate in this shit out of me. I know exactly how to run a successful business, but it's so disgusting I could never do it. Now it's me the stupid one who has a hard time finding something I actually feel is worth doing for this species I lost all faith in.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2017, 07:11:54 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on May 09, 2017, 02:22:22 pmSure, but somebody has to start.All the arguments so far have been along the lines of "it won't happen until XXX is cheaper". I want to know why that is. Why does it have to make instant profit, why can't it be seen as an investment in the future?Governments waste incredible amounts of money on other stuff. Several of these plants could be built for the cost of the F35 (which nobody ever really needed and is already obsolete because of drones).

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2017, 07:14:48 pm
content: Quote from: Kilrah on May 09, 2017, 05:55:19 pmCredit cards in the US seem to me in a rather strange situation, for many years the credit card companies bought lawmakers to forbid adding surcharges. That's slowly being turned back ... but still, if you simply pay your balance each month you are often cutting your own wrists by not using a credit card. They come with a lot of bennies, which often are free if you don't run up credit (or rather the people not paying with credit card pay extra for you to get them).

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2017, 07:19:29 pm
content: I've used a credit card from the start simply for the security it provides me. Multiple times someone has placed fraudulent charges on the card and I've never had to pay a dime of it. I always pay off my balance in full every month, often I carry a small positive balance just because it amuses me to see the angry looking red numbers in my statement. Interest is for suckers, if I don't have the money in the bank, I can't afford whatever it is I'm wanting to buy. The only exception to that rule I've ever made has been my house.

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 09, 2017, 07:44:01 pm
content: Same here, only using credit card for safety, never had to make use of it but that's it. I always repay before due.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2017, 07:45:50 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on May 09, 2017, 07:14:48 pmThey're also useful for emergencies. I've paid partial credit card balances a couple of times in my life when there was something expensive/urgent and I simply didn't have the cash. A couple of months interest isn't so bad if it gets you out of a hole.

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 09, 2017, 07:50:49 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 09, 2017, 07:11:54 pmBecause current society runs too well and that's now the expectation. The current generation did not need to build much of what they use, it was already there made by previous generations and affordable with no effort. And there isn't anything we really need or lack on top of it... it's hard to find something one would want that doesn't already exist, so why bother doing anything. The only valid reward for putting in some effort is huge fast return, then MAYBE someone will move their ass, anything else is not worth the hassle, especailly given the current regulatory complexities that make doing things way more ridiculously complicated than they should be, regardless of what you want to do it seems nowadays the first thing you've got to do is hire a lawyer to see if there's any chance of it being accepted rater than actually creating something.Quote from: Fungus on May 09, 2017, 07:11:54 pmFuture? Meh, things run, they'll continue to do so for any foreseeable furure (i.e. as long as we're alive). Who cares beyond that, it'll be even more broken than it's now anyway.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2017, 08:01:40 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 09, 2017, 07:45:50 pmThere are plenty of unforeseen things that can happen, but I start feeling really nervous if I don't have at least several months salary in the bank.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2017, 12:37:54 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 09, 2017, 12:28:29 pmIf you build your self funded solar panel machine the result would be a large pile of free panels, barring other inputs. You have to have something to hang them from, wires to connect them and so on. I know you will want to just extend the paradigm to have your free power machine to pay for those other costs. Which may or may not be possible. Since the panels have a finite life you can't just automatically end up with free stuff.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2017, 08:02:31 am
content: Still there is quite a range between free and "too expensive" where this could be practical. Solar panels don't have to be free, just affordable. They're already to where in favorable conditions they pay for themselves.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2017, 09:26:40 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on May 10, 2017, 12:37:54 amI have a feeling that problem would solve itself.(also a lot of jobs would be created for solar panel installers)

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2017, 11:04:40 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 09, 2017, 11:20:49 amNuclear power plants aren't bomb factories, not even remotely.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2017, 11:10:30 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on May 10, 2017, 11:04:40 amReally? So why is the USA so worried about Iran building a few nuclear power stations?

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2017, 11:38:43 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 10, 2017, 11:10:30 amIDK, but one's political views and prejudices are a bit off topic you know? So please... Thank you very much.

author: mc172
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2017, 12:35:38 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 10, 2017, 11:10:30 amProbably because if they can enrich the fuel to supply power stations, they can enrich the fuel to "weapons-grade". There's quite a bit of work and equipment involved going from what you put into a reactor to what you put into a bomb, though.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2017, 01:53:48 pm
content: Quote from: mc172 on May 10, 2017, 12:35:38 pmObviously, but the so-called "dual purpose" reactors built in the 1950 and 1960s were specificallydesignedto make the job much easier by producing weapons-grade plutonium on demand.eg.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-Reactorhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MagnoxPS: The Magnox reactors used non-enriched Uranium as fuel.Code:...the reactor was designed as both a power plant and, when operated with low fuel "burnup",as a producer of plutonium-239 for the nascent nuclear weapons program in Britain.This intentional dual-use approach to building electric power-reactors in the earlyCold War era was also typical in other nationsQuote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on May 10, 2017, 11:38:43 amPrejudices?OK, let me re-word it: Why is theworldso worried about Iran building a few nuclear power stations?The answer you're trying to avoid is: Because Iran would become a member of the"Nuclear Club".

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2017, 08:53:24 pm
content: guess who got them started on this project, way back during the Ford Administration?

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2017, 09:01:49 pm
content: If the solar panel installation project received funding from any state entity on any level, it's debatable what the likelihood of local job creation would be. It depends on how low the wages are in that country.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2017, 09:12:27 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on May 10, 2017, 08:53:24 pmYes, that was when "our man" Reza Pahlavi (The Shah) was in control (courtesy ofthe CIA sponsored coup to oust the democratically elected prime minister).Blowback is a bitch.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2017, 12:50:58 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 10, 2017, 09:26:40 amIt might solve itself. But might not. The re-cycling industry gives good examples of things where free isn't cheap enough. Glass. Newsprint. And other things. Recyclers in many locations have stopped accepting these and other materials in many locations because they couldn't get rid of enormous piles of these materials. Even by giving it away, and in some cases paying a small fee to those willing to haul it away and use it. In those cases even a negative cost wasn't good enough.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2017, 01:20:41 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 10, 2017, 11:10:30 amCause can't upgrade to Shah of Iran version 2.0 anymore as version 1.0 is gone, while a fresh installation sounds impossible now, thats why, its never about nuclear anyway.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2017, 09:48:21 pm
content: Two posts about two different subjectsIts important to understand that both US parties support this policy, don't be misled by the title into thinking it would just be one.Basically, because the US wants to promote a policy of not "local sourcing" we brought a case against India for ..... Read the wording carefully, you'll probably see this framing again in the future..http://www.iatp.org/blog/201602/obama-undermines-climate-efforts-in-solar-trade-disputeAlso, this is about nuclear power and Iran.At one point in the 1950s, Iran had a secular, democratic government but they wanted to run their oil industry themselves..then we (the US and the UK)overthrew that government.. then installed this really vicious madman, Reza Pahlavi.. While he was in power...http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb521-Irans-Nuclear-Program-1975-vs-2015/Then of course he was overthrown, leading to the mullahs, who were also horrible..Its just nuts.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2017, 10:16:11 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on May 13, 2017, 09:48:21 pmYes, as I posted a few posts above. It was calledOperation AjaxBrought to you by Allen Dulles who really got the the CIA's wonderful world contributions going:

author: daveyk
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2017, 10:40:03 pm
content: Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2017, 11:55:34 pm
content: So now we know that good ways to rile up Dave include how to pronounce Bode and talking about AGW....

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 04:03:26 pm
content: Anyone remember all the global cooling / new ice age bull crap from the 70s?

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 04:10:04 pm
content: Quote from: Smokey on May 14, 2017, 11:55:34 pmOr being christian, or jew, or whatever I guess. Even hare krishna. He is religiously atheist, huh! How cool is that?

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 04:11:20 pm
content: Quoteits all just political scaremongering.as sydney harbour shud be deep under waterand polar bears shud be homeless by now.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 06:07:46 pm
content: Quote from: orion242 on May 17, 2017, 04:03:26 pmYeah, well ... we've built some weather satellites since then.Back then a few dozen people used to go outside and write thermometer readings in little books with a pencil.Now we can see the entire world in real time and even see the temperatures of the oceansandthe poles(!)

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 06:33:02 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 17, 2017, 06:07:46 pmYes, and the "flash in the pan" idea in 1974-1975 that there was global cooling was mostly a media event due to a pair of Time and Newsweek articles. Even back then it was greenhouse warming not cooling that dominated the thinking in the scientific community.See here

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 06:46:16 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 17, 2017, 06:07:46 pmYet we are sure the present heating is unprecedented and MWP/LIA were local.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 06:58:08 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on May 17, 2017, 06:46:16 pmTo be fair, the people saying there was going to be an ice age in the 1970s were the same people going around saying "scientists have proved that bees can't fly".Neither is true:https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htmhttp://www.snopes.com/science/bumblebees.aspAnd yes, our instruments have got a lot better since then and they're confirming the 1970s pencil-and-paper predictions.Plus: The 1970s was when greenhouse gas emissions really started taking off, so that's the most important period to study in detail.https://xkcd.com/1732/

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2017, 08:57:47 pm
content: No one was doing global pencil and paper thermometer readings during the MWP/LIA, or indeed most of the rest of the hockeystick.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 07:52:47 am
content: Quote from: Marco on May 17, 2017, 08:57:47 pmAnd... how does that make it a good idea to dump billions of tons of CO2 into the air in the 21st century?(nb. the title of this thread contains another three letter acronym, "AGW")

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 09:12:27 am
content: Quotenote the text >Data from Scripps CO2 Program Last updated May 2006<http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/GreenhouseGasNetworkOk so this is way before The climategate emails exposed the scandal to hide alternatives scientific theories like natural cycles or global cooling, to the global warming theories by many in the scientific establishment & The United Nations.as many say natural cycles of carbon dioxide change because of the Sun Not because of man.however there is nothing to be had by pushing natural cycles. only a doom and gloomscientific theories like the global warming. can be used by political left & the new age corporations raise taxs on the masses, in the name of saving the world.its all about an United Nations push for global government, useing the doom and gloom story by al gore.carbon dioxide is natural, as its the Sun that controls temperature levels. but try telling that to the political left.its political.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 09:20:58 am
content: So far only 25% have chosen "smells fishy" ... 27 out of 107, 1 out of 4. Not so bad given Dave's manipulated poll now provides 2x more pro AGW options, just in case.Quote+1 that ^^^

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 09:26:15 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on May 18, 2017, 09:20:58 amProblem: The poll title says "among engineers".The post just above yours shows very clearly that not everybody who voted is an engineer.

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 09:33:31 am
content: Quoteengineers vs scientists, the poll app has two unused windowswhy did not use them.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 09:48:24 am
content: Quote from: jonovid on May 18, 2017, 09:12:27 amI don't have enoughfor this.What you need to do is find someevidencethat contradicts it, not just repeat crap you heard on Facebook or say "that picture is old, neener neener".PS: Two seconds with google will find you a newer picture (and it's not going to show a decrease or levelling off in CO2).https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=co2+levels+by+year

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 11:33:36 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 17, 2017, 06:58:08 pmWell IMO this AWG crap is the same as the global cooling media event of yesteryear.This 97% of all climate scientist agree on AWG is another fabrication of the truth. This number seems to trace back to this study, and its only if you whittle down the respondents to a small group of those polled do they come up with. Yet the media, politicans, etc all blab away as if 97% of ALL climate scientists really agree.http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=3CB1DC7414FD6E3D680EC789312E3B28.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org"AbstractWe analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11?944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."Nevermind the 66% that took no position on AWG, lets only look at the 32% that did take the leap and say humans are to blame. Somehow this means nearly ALL climate scientists agree?!?! This 97% number is being misrepresented at best. Yet anyone that comments to the contrary of AWG is a nut job conspiracist. I thought science was based on provable facts, not phony statistics.Add in climategate, grants mainly funding studies that want to show AWG is real, bogus 97%.... IMO, there is too much money flowing only in one direction to get any objective science on this matter. Some of the same scientists pushing global cooling in the 70s are the same dbags that now push global warming. Should we limit Co2, probably. Should we all get taxed to $hit on energy, forced to use subsidized electric cars that have little to no ROI, smother solar and wind with tax money to make give them a chance of being financially viable....not in my book. Technology is getting better and will likely solve this problem give time.

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 11:55:09 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on May 18, 2017, 09:20:58 amFrankly that's a bit embarrassing. Global change/warming isn't really disputed anymore, virtually everyone agrees it's happening, even the big oil lobby. Where the difference lies is weather it's human caused or not. Which also shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out.But it's also a much less important point. Lets say it isn't even caused by humans, we should still do something about it. I try to design more efficient electronics.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 12:18:36 pm
content: Quote from: Muxr on May 18, 2017, 11:55:09 amNot sure capping off volcanoes would get much traction, lol. I'm more or less with you. Energy is a finite resource, we should conserve it. I just don't see the need to adopt bs regulation on technologies that cannot stand on their own legs or being taxed to the point they can.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 03:20:22 pm
content: New technologies are often a chicken & egg problem. Today LED light bulbs are efficient, reliable and inexpensive. To get to where they are now required something to spur the process and get it going, and the ban on many traditional incandescent bulbs along with subsidies on the LED bulbs did just that. Personally I would have preferred a tax on inefficient bulbs rather than a ban but whatever, that's water under the bridge. It's not hard to see why this sort of thing is necessary, people are notoriously short sighted. Doesn't take much looking around to see examples of this, most people especially in younger generations are all about instant gratification. People take out payment plans for freaking smartphones and toys. People are naturally resistant to change, sometimes they have to be dragged kicking and screaming and then they realize they really are better off.Fuel economy regulations are another example, it could be said that they have gone too far, but I have little doubt that if not for regulations, we would still have loads of cars on the market that got lousy gas mileage and probably still some with carburetors but people would buy them because they'd be cheap, even if the total cost of ownership was higher ignoring the environmental footprint.Both of these are examples of technologies that can stand on their own today, but may never have got any traction if the initial development was not given a push. Countless other technologies began as military/defense efforts where our tax dollars are spent freely. The GPS system that so many of us rely on today would never have happened without the military, even now I'm not sure it could stand on its own legs if we had to subscribe to access it or if we all paid a separate GPS tax to support it. Instead it's hidden by rolling it into the defense budget.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 04:22:31 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on May 18, 2017, 03:20:22 pmOnce $4/gal gas hit, sales of SUVs hit the toilet, today with the return of cheap gas even with all the regulation they are again one of the most popular models. Seems now there on track to requirements that may not be technically possible or are our cars become so stupid expensive most can afford them so they stay with their gas hogging clunker. Somewhere their needs to be a sensible balance.I deal with these credits all the time in building automation. We have pretty substantial credits for putting VFDs on motors where I'm at currently. Sounds like a good idea and it is in a lot of cases. Being the credits are so good, I see a fair deal of these applied to motors that need to run full speed in order to operate the equipment correctly. So they add a VFD, run it @ 100% constantly while taking a 5%eff hit just to collect a wad of cash. Does the program wash out overall, I don't know. I know its my tax money paying for this BS, and there should be enough merit based on the energy savings alone IMO.When VFDs originally came out, they where expensive as hell in the HVAC field. I don't remember any real credits being handed out then, nothing like they do today. People installed them where they actually had a payback in the energy savings. Somehow they caught on, and now they are common as candy corn in our field.LED bulbs, I don't see any different. Without any handouts, they are plenty of applications a $25-50 bulb made cents. Bulbs in a auditorium/gym ceilings, billboards, etc where the labor to install them outweighs the cost. Would technology move faster if we shower it in cash, sure. Without any handouts, would LED technology stop dead in its tracks, doubt it.There are alot of innovations out there that didn't require us showering it with money. If it has merits, people will buy it. More people buy it, costs come down and it snowballs.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 06:12:54 pm
content: There is certainly a lot of BS out there but I still support dumping some money into some things in order to encourage adoption which spurs production and drops the cost. Doing things like installing VFDs where the motors are always run at 100% is exploiting the system and is part of the problem. Somebody should have been more careful about authorizing the subsidies and the people outfitting the facilities could use some morals as well. That said, there was some benefit, even if some of those VFDs sold were not beneficial directly, it got them out there and now VFDs are cheap and widely available. I was an early adopter of LEDs and before that CFLs. I was so impressed with the first LED bulbs I got that I retrofitted most of my house with them over the following 2 years after they became available even at 40 bucks a pop. Those original expensive bulbs I got are all still working and by my calculations most of them have paid for themselves now in savings. I have not replaced a single burned out bulb since 2012, that's amazing to me, I used to replace bulbs all the time. Now they are produced in such numbers that prices have fallen to well under $5 for decent bulbs but a huge percentage of the population is still too stupid to see the benefit. They keep buying "cheap" incandescent bulbs because they have no concept of the connection between their monthly electrical bill and the bulbs they use. It seems trivial to me but then I understand basic math, clearly not everyone does. I could go on all day listing examples of technologies, services and infrastructure that would have been a non-starter had it relied solely on the free market. I realize capitalism (which I'm generally a believer in) is a religious ideology to many but it's not rational to think that everything can pick itself up by the bootstraps and become a market success. Public companies are so focused on the quarterly results that few are going to invest in a technology that may succeed in 10 or 20 years, shareholders want to see a return on their investment right now.Americans in general and probably much of the rest of the Western world have become obsessed with instant gratification. People buy non-necessities on credit cards and look only at the monthly bill rather than the total cost of purchase. People you mention start buying SUVs when gas gets cheap even though anyone with half a functioning brain should realize that fuel prices are going to go back up and then those people will be pissing and moaning about the fuel cost. Even the guzzling SUVs of today are nothing like what we had before, my dad had a truck that was lucky to get 8mpg if you drove with a light foot. Now low 20s is easily attainable in a bigger more well equipped truck. People even fall for those "rent to own" furniture scams, if that doesn't illustrate how fiscally illiterate a significant swath of the population is then I don't know what does. If you have to rent a damn sofa or TV you can't afford a new sofa or TV, that ought to be obvious. My take on it is that many people really are too stupid to make sensible choices for themselves.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 06:46:00 pm
content: When discussing subsidies, it's important to remember that fossil fuel and nuclear power generation have been and continue to be heavily government subsidized.Regarding the scientific consensus on AGW, it is based onmore than just one study:QuoteMore can be foundHEREIt's also a fact thatall the major scientific organizationssupport the tenets of AGW.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2017, 07:09:46 pm
content: I think the majority of the AGW doubt is nothing more than wishful thinking and confirmation bias, people believe it's BS because it somehow conflicts with their worldview and/or self interests. There is clearly a part of the brain that handles beliefs, that may be occupied by traditional religious beliefs but it can just as easily latch onto other things which people then get extremely emotionally tied to. That region of the brain is far more active in some individuals than others and for those who are dominated by it, it's impossible to use logic, reason and empirical evidence to debate with them because their belief is not based on those things to begin with. They will not "see" or will immediately dismiss any evidence which does not support the belief they already hold.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 19, 2017, 12:50:41 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 18, 2017, 06:46:00 pmExactly, is there any need for this? Same thing.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2017, 08:19:09 am
content: Quote from: orion242 on May 19, 2017, 12:50:41 amNo, but the people who decide what gets subsidized are the same people who own the oil companies.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2017, 09:20:27 am
content: Quote from: orion242 on May 19, 2017, 12:50:41 amWell, yes, there is, because nowadays we prefer to buy @aliexpress and have things sent across the world instead of going to the Radio Shack that's 2 streets away.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2017, 10:45:55 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on May 19, 2017, 09:20:27 amWhat does that have to do with subsidy of power plants?If Radio Shack can't compete online with the Chinese then I could understand subsidy of USA labor or increased import tariffs for Chinese goods as a political solution.Subsidy of something that mostly puts money into politician's pockets? Not so much.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2017, 01:57:26 pm
content: Subsidized shipping, perhaps?

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2017, 02:20:01 pm
content: Ships => gigantic diesel engines

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2017, 02:35:40 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 18, 2017, 06:46:00 pmBecause they provide autarky ... renewable energy less so, especially say solar in Europe.PS. mail subsidies are screwed up, we're killing small local businesses, wasting a ton of fuel all in the name of some seemingly inviolable old international mail treaty.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2017, 02:57:34 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on May 19, 2017, 02:35:40 pmIt's also bad for local postal services. Even if China pays the costs of the shipping containers it still has to be sorted, transported and delivered in the destination countries. There's no way they're making money on that.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2017, 04:45:12 pm
content: I think it goes to show globalism is a cause, while AGW inspired environmentalism is often a means to a cause (cronyism, weakening western economies to benefit globalism etc). We get regulations and engine destroying fuel in our cars, meanwhile the ships providing us our aliexpress packages are subsidized by our national postal services and burn bunker oil.We screw around in the margins while shipping fleets burn gunk with upto 4.5% sulphur.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2017, 05:06:02 pm
content: What engine destroying fuel? I don't even remember the last time I encountered a bad engine in a car that wasn't completely falling apart, except for the kids who crank up the boost on their turbos.Bunker fuel is dirty, but I would wager that even the dirtiest bunker fuel spews less pollution per quantity of goods transferred than the cleanest road transport. Huge container ships are extremely efficient because they transport such a vast quantity of cargo all at once on that one single engine. Can you imagine how much fuel would be consumed and how much resulting pollution you'd get from a convoy of 19,000 semi trucks?

author: timgiles
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2017, 06:03:07 pm
content: Human activity contributes only a tiny amount of the total addition 'green house' gases put out each year (water vapour, CO2, methane, N2O..). Of the annual green house contributing gas - Natural processes over which we have no control or possibility to control account for 99+%. Man made, contribution 0.3% give or take.Now I am no climate scientist - but I simply don't understand what the issue is. If global temperature is going up, or going down - there is little the human race can do to change it. We seemingly have failed to change it doing our worst over the last 100 years with no or little control over emissions. Also from all the data I have seen put forward, none of it matters if the earth is changing its temperature rather than us.So do I think we should have international agreements on energy cost (to the environment) - yes absolutely. Energy is a finite resource as has been said in the thread and we should ensure that we produce it efficiently. We should manage/restrict the release of toxins, we should try where possible to limit the negative effect our lives make on the environment around us as well as on the other side of the world.However - when I hear people bemoaning the rising sea levels, I wonder what they expect us to do about it. I mean seriously? If people have chosen to live at sea level, or live there anyway - they need to be shown the evidence that sea level is rising at the same rate it has for 1-200 years and about 50% it raised the several hundreds of years before that. There is nothing we can do as a world to stop this. If we as a race believe these people should be moved, we should offer them that.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2017, 06:14:36 pm
content: Quote from: timgiles on May 19, 2017, 06:03:07 pmDon't take this as a personal insult because none is intended, but I'm going to take the word of those who *are* climate scientists or at least subject matter experts over yours on this particular matter. It is pretty close to unanimously agreed that humans are responsible for a far greater portion of greenhouse gas emissions than that. There is really no controversy to speak of, the loudest skeptics tend to have either ties to various industries or the concept of humans being capable of upsetting the climate of the earth is incompatible with their religious views.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2017, 06:22:02 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on May 19, 2017, 05:06:02 pmE15.QuoteI don't have a sea harbour in front of my home, locally produced goods and foreign produced goods both go on the lorry. So subsidizing foreign produced goods seems like a bad idea. They might be relatively efficient CO2 wise ... but shipping emits enough sulphur to dwarf cars altogether. It's atrociously dirty.

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2017, 01:55:15 am
content: Quote from: Marco on May 19, 2017, 06:22:02 pmYea bunker fuel is some nasty stuff, just the rotten, barely able to burn, bottom of the barrel hydrocarbon family, just above asphalt and coke. In fact they have to use very expensive motor driven high speed centrifugal fuel filter machine(s) to keep from plugging up the engine. In most ports in 1st world countries they are not allowed to use bunker coming into or leaving port, they have to switch to diesel fuel.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 20, 2017, 01:56:40 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 18, 2017, 06:46:00 pmI'll look into these links, thanks.Your first link however is the same report i already pointed to, and its NOT pointing to the conclusions you suggest.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2017, 02:27:45 pm
content: Quote from: timgiles on May 19, 2017, 06:03:07 pmThis is a false argument. A single strawcanbreak a camel's back.https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2017, 05:29:23 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 20, 2017, 02:27:45 pmExactly. This is something that any engineer or scientist with even a passing familiarity with control theory should easily understand. Addition of a relatively very small input beyond what a system was designed to handle can make the system unstable - especially if that input is continuous. The magnitude of the input can be a very small fraction of the other inputs. For example - add a very small amount of extra heat continuously beyond what a system was designed to dissipate, even if that extra heat is many orders of magnitude below the normal inputs, and the consequences should be obvious. Or from human physiology - eat just 20 extra calories a day, every day (normal daily intake is around 2000) and in a few years you will be very fat.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2017, 07:04:46 pm
content: There are a few parts in the green-house effect that are not that easy (e.g. water vapor, cloud formation, changing wind patterns, ocean currents), however the balance of the carbon / CO2 is a really easy part. This is something easy to check, without help of computers:There is reasonable knowledge on how much coal and oil is burnt (thus the main part of the "human" emissions) and there are also good, reliable measurements on the CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans. These data match up very well. So saying that the human caused emissions are too small is like trying to tell you 1 + 1 is 3. Comparing yearly emissions with the total carbon contend in the oceans is more like confusing with large numbers. Already going from emissions per year to emissions per century would change the impression, without any change in the values. Usually this should ring BS alarm on those using these false arguments. It's a little like a new Batterizer adding blazing billions of electron volts of Energy to a dead battery.The difficult part is to judge wether we will see 1 or 2 or maybe even 10 degree temperature rise when doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere. This needs all the complicated models or at least trusting the accuracy of the temperature data with all the needed adjustments and fitting. Here it is really hard for a non expert to make up there own picture. Especially the models need experts we have to trust on this.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2017, 07:24:52 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 20, 2017, 05:29:23 pmBut it's not designed for anything and it has been metastable at CO2 levels far higher in the past, so it's scientifically very plausible that the biosphere will survive just fine.Modern civilization might be in trouble, but we're in trouble any way. Overpopulation combined with peak everything, WMD proliferation with bioweapons quickly becoming more dangerous than nukes, demographic collapse among western culture (which lets not kid ourselves, are the core of modern civilization) combined with mass immigration of non western cultures ... I rate all those higher threats to modern civilization than the potential of AGW if true. We're doing a lot less about them too, with the exception of WMDs it's not PC to think or talk about them even.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2017, 07:32:29 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on May 20, 2017, 07:24:52 pmIt all depends on what time frame you are considering and what you mean by stable. Yes, COs levels have been higher and the planet has been much warmer in the distant past- but at that time there were no large mammals living. "Stable" for one type of biological system may not be stable for another. Biologic systems can evolve, change and adapt to new physical conditions but rapid changes are problematic - especially when looking at specific species. Humans have some unique characteristics which have obviously allowed us to adapt to a diverse set of physical environments. But in the end, we are no different than other species - we depend on an intact biosphere that approximates the environment we evolved in.

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2017, 07:38:55 pm
content: Quotethe doom and gloom of the deep state

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2017, 07:56:45 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on May 20, 2017, 07:24:52 pmYes, but do we really want to go back there if we can avoid it?

author: Hensingler
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 02:35:50 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 20, 2017, 05:29:23 pmThe very obvious consequence is the system temperature will increase causing it to dissipate the extra heat. Systems do not have a 'designed' dissipation limit. A heatsink designed to dissipate 100W at 100C does not increase temperature till it melts if you feed it an extra watt. Remember the whole CO2 driven AWG theory is based on CO2 reflecting back some of the heat the earth would otherwise radiate into space.Quote from: mtdoc on May 20, 2017, 05:29:23 pmNo, you will gain enough extra weight to burn an extra 20 calories a day moving it around.Quote from: Fungus on May 20, 2017, 07:56:45 pmBack where? What is the ideal global temperature and ideal for who/what? I and most of the life on the planet would rather it got warmer than go back just 11,000 years when much of the currently temperate climes were under kms of ice.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 04:41:08 am
content: Quote from: Hensingler on May 21, 2017, 02:35:50 amI was not specifically referring to heat sinks or electronics but giving a simple example of a general principle. Nevertheless, the principle holds true. A relatively small continuous input of heat beyond what a system can dissipate (regardless of design) will have adverse consequences (and no I'm not talking about melting a heatsink). Electronic systems, automobile systems, geophysical systems, biological systems, etc, etc.Are you disputing that or just tr.....QuoteWouldn't it be nice if that were true! We could all eat as much as we want then... Again - I was simplifying but the idea is factually correct. To be more specific - take in just 20 calories more a day than your body burns (by whatever mechanism) and you will gain large amounts of weight over time - despite the extra calories being a small fraction of total caloric intake.Are you disputing that or just tr.....All complex systems geophysical and biological systems (and well designed by human systems) have mechanisms to maintain a steady state or homeostasis. Generally these involve a set of negative feedback loops. But there are limits to the inputs and it's just a fact that beyond some point, continuous inputs that are relatively small compared to the total inputs, will result in loss of that steady state or homeostasis. A new steady state is often achieved eventually but it may be quite different one. There are countless examples of this in mammalian physiology (the field I am most familiar with) - body temperature, body weight, blood pH, ion concentrations, etc, etc..QuoteThat's an extremely uninformed view. Even if one ignores the adverse impact that warming has on human life-supporting local and global ecosystems, there are hard limits as to what temperature animal life can tolerate. For humans and other large mammals those limits will begin to be exceeded within a few decades if current trends continue. A 3-4 degree C temp rise means very large numbers of people start to die from heat related illness. Continue that trend to a rise of 7 degrees and parts of the planet become uninhabitable. 12 degrees and most of the planet is uninhabitable.See:An adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stressBut it's likely that long before then, ecosystem stress would result in lower food production, lower atmospheric O2, and of course loss of currently highly populated areas and large amounts of arable land due to sea level rise - all resulting in a large decrease in human population.But I'm a cynic. Humans won't change enough to make a difference. Eventually we'll burn every bit of fossil fuel we are able to get our hands on. If you zoom out both spatially and temporally, AGW could be seen as the earth's way of re-achieving homeostasis. To quote George Carlin "The planet is fine, the people are fucked" and "The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas"

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 06:25:36 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 21, 2017, 04:41:08 amIt seems to me that the key to this point is the statement "beyond what a system can dissipate" - which begs the question: What IS that figure? Having that would really put some arguments to bed.Quote"take in just 20 calories more a daythan your body burns". This is changing the math - from a linear relationship to a geometric one - and changes the answer significantly. Nevertheless, the question that then falls from this concept is: What similarity does this have to the current trend in global CO2emissions?

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 09:15:25 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on May 21, 2017, 06:25:36 amWe don't know. That's the problem - some people seem to think we should do the experiment and find out.The whole "it was warmer before" argument is completely empty, it's just unconnected words, but it's the one that usually pops up these days (the 'anti' arguments go in cycles).a) It doesn't tell you anything about if the warming is man made.b) It doesn't mean it would be good if it got warmer again.c) It doesn't mean the planet will react the same if it happens again.d)...To me it seems common sense that ifmanis causing the warming ('AGW') then we should stop doing it. The money being spent on Iraq/Afghanistan or the F35 would make a great start towards fixing it and the cheap energy that results would probably pay for it in economic terms later on.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 09:21:28 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 21, 2017, 04:41:08 amMe too. If "doing something about it" requires educating all the people who watch Fox News, etc. before any steps can be taken, then .... we're screwed.The sad/ironic part is that thoseexact same scientistswho currently knownothingabout climate* will be the people called on to fix the planet via geoengineering it (or whatever).(*) In the eyes of Fox News.

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 10:57:17 am
content: Im more concerned about eugenics then one of 6 gases that the UN says is pollution. CO2 is not the problem, the real problem is the rise of eugenics, that to say the push towards the idea, humans are useless eaters. calls for depopulation to be the highest priority. to do it quickly, that equals euthanasia of the useless eaters. to save the world or the planet. for a utopian society.this did take place in the 1940s Germany. gypsy's , homosexuals & Jewish people were rounded up like sheep. to be euthanized. as bullets were needed for the war. so it was decided to use gas as this is more efficient. the depopulation program was increased to an industrial scale useing ovens and full recycling programs! for human hair skin & even gold from teeth. some will say this never happened. but it did. this should be a warning, when you have calls for depopulation in the name of planet.

author: daveyk
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 12:22:59 pm
content: Quote from: orion242 on May 17, 2017, 04:03:26 pmYes, but I thought that was in the 1960's "Oh, we're heading in to a new Ice Age!".Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 12:28:05 pm
content: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal#Origins"Origins [of mammals]Synapsida, a clade that contains mammals and their extinct relatives, originated during the Pennsylvanian subperiod, when they split from reptilian and avian lineages. Crown group mammals evolved from earlier mammaliaformsduring the Early Jurassic."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide"Five hundred million years ago the carbon dioxide concentration was 20 times greater than today,decreasing to 4–5 times during the Jurassicperiod and then slowly declining with a particularly swift reduction occurring 49 million years ago.""The concentration of carbon dioxide has risen due to human activities. Combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation have caused the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to increase by about 43% since the beginning of the age of industrialization."That ^^^^ , does not mean that there's been life on earth, and mammals, and 4..5x more CO2 than now, before?

author: Hensingler
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 01:55:03 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 21, 2017, 09:15:25 amBecause we really don't want to delay the next ice age where most of north America, Europe and Russia will spend thousands of years buried under thousands of metres of ice like the last time.I asked you what the ideal global temperature was and you don't know or wouldn't say. If you don't know you can't say warmer is better or worse. Here is a clue. There is a 40C spread in average temperature between the equator and poles, 2 degrees of latitude change is around 1C temperature change. At what latitudes is life most prolific and diverse?The idea that the globe was at the perfect temperature about 100 years ago is pretty unlikely and given no one has or can decide on criteria for what a perfect temperature is, ridiculous anyway. Do you ask penguins or lizards?It is quite possible the benefits of some warming outweigh the disadvantages and plants certainly like more CO2.The only thing that is really clear to me is the huge desire of stupid people to flagellate self and others for wickedness even to the point of, like Don Quixote, turning windmills into dragons just to tilt against them.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 03:26:56 pm
content: Quote from: jonovid on May 21, 2017, 10:57:17 amYou don't need euthanasia, sterilization solves it quickly enough. That said, what calls? Overpopulation has become an completely un-PC topic, especially because it mixes with immigration ... that's why all refugees will soon be said to be "climate refugees" (doubling population in 25 years has slightly more impact than climate change of course, but that's another thing you won't hear much except from Nazis like me).There are alternatives, none of which are terribly appetizing either :Closing the borders and letting Malthus solve the problem in the countries having it.A globally imposed government and culture which at the same time ensures basic survival for everyone, while on the other being so oppressive that all people stop wanting to reproduce. In other words, communism.Singularity and post scarcity, not bloody likely.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 03:57:43 pm
content: Don't forget to factor in a comet which could hit the earth at any time.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 05:09:01 pm
content: More likely is the Yellowstone supervolcano popping it's cap off, pretty likely if the Big One turns California into an island. Think Deccan traps style eruption, will make Anak Krakatoa look like an anthill.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 05:16:18 pm
content: Quote from: Hensingler on May 21, 2017, 01:55:03 pmAs was asked earlier, "ideal for who". If the answer is "ideal for the global human population" then the answer is that the ideal temperature is about what it is now - or better-what it was 50 years or so ago when global population centers were first expanding.There is no question that any warming from here forward will continue to cause increased flooding of lowland coastal areas which will adversely impact millions of people.That's just one example but it's the easiest one for those without the knowledge base to understand the impacts that just a few degrees temperature rise will have on global ecosystems which support our current human population.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 05:30:14 pm
content: I suspect that arable land wise gains in Russia will more than offset the losses in the rest of the world.As for the impact of global warming, I'm not denying it ... I'm just sceptical about the science "proving" the A part, my faith in the science disappeared with the MWP/LIA.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 05:45:56 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on May 21, 2017, 05:30:14 pmPerhaps, over many decades. In the meantime....Human population centers, infrastructure, industrial base, and agriculture have all been optimized based on the climate and land base that existed over the past 100 years. Any change in that occurring over a short time scale (say 50-100 years) is going to have an adverse impact on human population.The problem is that even if you want to argue that after a large population decrease in the next 50 years due to flooding of current population centers, industrial centers and arable land, the population would then increase again due to new arable land, relocation of population and industry, etc - you can't just stop AGW at say 2-3 degrees C above where it is now. It becomes self-reinforcing due to several positive feedback centers and will likely continue well beyond that to where global ecosystem collapse and large areas become physically uninhabitable to humans.It appears that as a species, that is the route we have chosen - a global experiment with us and the biosphere as its subjects.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 05:58:06 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on May 21, 2017, 05:30:14 pmThat's a lame excuse. The tenets of AGW is the result of several decades of work done internationally but thousands of scientists. As has been pointed out numerous times, science is a self-correcting process where ideas are developed and later revised based on new data. But eventually, based on a large body of work over time, consensus develops. Also has been pointed out many times, science does not need to prove with 100% confidence that AGW is fact to justify taking action - especially given the ramifications.Why do people buy fire insurance for their home when a house fire is a statistically rare event yet refuse to acknowledge the need for action on AGW when the science says it is a >90 % certainty?

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 05:58:37 pm
content: I am sure AGW exists and I do not care because rent seeking will ensure that workable solutions are unavailable. This can be summed up by this conversation in the British science fiction film Quatermass and the Pit from 1967:Professor Bernard Quatermass: The will to survive is an odd phenomenon. Roney, if we found out our own world was doomed, say by climatic changes, what would we do about it?Dr. Mathew Roney: Nothing, just go on squabbling like usual.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 06:26:20 pm
content: QuoteWhen there was 5..20x more CO2 than now surely there was no positive feedback then?

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 06:33:36 pm
content: QuoteI would say that most people buy fire insurance because it's a contract requirement by the mortgage company to grant a home loan.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 06:36:27 pm
content: QuoteIsn't that an argument from authority? Those scientists are payed by... who? "The establisment says the earth is flat" doesn't that ring any bells? To many it does!Are all the skeptics simply fools in your opinion? That with a Nobel Prize, for example?

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 06:43:20 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 21, 2017, 05:45:56 pmThe regions where actual optimization has taken place (ie. Western world, some Western Colonies and some South East Asian countries) would do fine if it wasn't for mass migration. The costs my country makes to protect against water (not really because of rising water, our western coast is actually dropping, only the eastern part of the country is rising) is dwarfed by the costs of non western immigration.When you double your population in 25 years AND are dependent on foreign aid, talking about the land being optimized for use on a scale of 100 years is silly.QuoteNo, global warming will stop tomorrow.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 08:47:56 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on May 21, 2017, 06:36:27 pmModest salaries with mostly public funding. Versus the professional AGW deniers funded by large fossil fuel industry funding.QuoteSure - to those who appeal to religious authority. That has nothing to do with science. Ever heard ofThe Enlightenment?QuoteIt used to be that there were many honest skeptics. 15 - 20 years ago when the evidence was still being accumulated. In my view, currently the so called "skeptics"mostlyfall in to a few broad categories:1) Professional "skeptics" funded by the fossil fuel and other industries with a vested interest in denying the scientific consensus.2) Gullible science - illiterate individuals who believe what their favorite religious or political leaders tell them and ignore the scientific community (creationists are another example of this).3) Those whose financial interests or political tribalism lead them into a corner of unconscious bias and denial.QuoteYou mean that nutty old non- climate scientist who receives funding from fossil fuel interests?Hmm, whom to believe? - him and the handful of other scientists who deny the consensus or the opinion of > 97% of the international climate science community, dozens of nobel laureates, all of the major scientific organizations and the >97% of scientific literature supporting the tenets of AGW? It's great that their are just a few "honest" skeptics in the scientific community out there. That is how it should be. But for the average person it is dishonest IMO to claim they are pro-science but deny the opinions of > 97% of the climate science community just because it does not fit their vested financial, political, or religious interests.

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 09:07:33 pm
content: consensus among engineers? ................ No!

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 10:22:11 pm
content: Quote from: rob77 on May 06, 2017, 05:04:07 pmRigol's marketing ancestors.Quote from: nctnico on May 07, 2017, 08:25:22 pmReducing energy consumption is effectively an argument to lower the standard of living. I am sure that will be really popular. Maybe we should argue instead that food should be rationed; the result will be the same.Quote from: Marco on May 07, 2017, 09:21:07 pmThese two things conflict. Nuclear power has to compete against energy storage which would need an order of magnitude improvement to be competitive. How many orders of magnitude has battery storage had ever? 1/2?Quote from: james_s on May 09, 2017, 05:39:20 pmWhere I am incandescent bulbs *were* cheaper because dirty power would burn them out about every 6 months. Now instead more expensive CFL and LED bulbs burn out every 6 months.Quote from: Marco on May 21, 2017, 03:26:56 pmClosing the borders is not necessary for that. Our old companions war, famine, plague, and pestilence do not care about borders.Quote from: Marco on May 21, 2017, 05:30:14 pmArable land is what is important. And if the arable land for your existing crops shifts location, then you better be prepared to move or replace those crops. Does anybody think entrenched and ossified political structures can handle this sort of issue before it becomes a deadly problem? Because they sure will take advantage of it for rent seeking.Quote from: mtdoc on May 21, 2017, 08:47:56 pmVersus politically motivated funding by those seeking to take advantage of rent seeking. The best way to get published is to support AGW.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 10:24:02 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 21, 2017, 05:58:06 pmPapers about MWP/LIA global nature are not as frequently cited as Mann's, but they are certainly not fringe. There is no tenet, only opposing camps.Given the atrocious fit of climate models over the last few decades, hand waving and looking at the past is kind of important to climate "science". Hand wave the MWP/LIA away and you have unprecedented warming in recorded history, don't and you have an excursion currently only slightly higher than a millennium ago.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 10:28:49 pm
content: Quote from: David Hess on May 21, 2017, 10:22:11 pmNo it isn't. It is about demanding better products. In the EU they set a max on the power of vacuum cleaners. Guess what: the ones for sale nowadays work just as well but are more efficient.QuoteYou don't need arable land. You need good farming skills and technologies! Look at the NL: the world's 2nd largest exporter of agricultural products after the US which has 236 times more land. Being efficient pays off!

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 10:31:29 pm
content: Quote from: David Hess on May 21, 2017, 10:22:11 pmOverpopulated nations don't have the power to spread those to the west if the west would be truly opposed to allowing them.Closing the borders wouldn't be pretty, but walls and entrenched long range weaponry will keep uncoordinated and largely unarmed masses out just fine.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2017, 10:46:24 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 21, 2017, 10:28:49 pmWork just as well? That is not what I have read.Was there really a problem with vacuum cleaner efficiency? Didn't they also make a similar regulation for electric kettles? How was taking longer to heat the water more efficient?The US has had a rash of similar policies enforced from above and the results are exactly what I expected. Energy efficient dishwashers have to be run twice. Toilets have to be flushed twice.These policies always result in rent seeking and they are too common for me to believe this is anything except deliberate.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 12:01:00 am
content: Quote from: Marco on May 21, 2017, 10:24:02 pmOne opposing camp consisting of >97% of climate scientists and all the major scientific organizations versus another consisting of a few fringe scientists many of whom receive funding from the fossil fuel industry - oh and zero reputable scientific organizations.Even during the years of tobacco company corruption of some scientists the numbers were never that skewed.

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 12:31:41 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 22, 2017, 12:01:00 amI read that >97% figure before and that this is 'settled science'.I don't mind people having any opinion on any subject, that is what free speech is all about. But whenone must try and claim their opinions as indisputable fact, then my spidey senses start to tingle.Here is something I read recently that sounds more realistic and closer to factual:Quote

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 12:55:42 am
content: Quote from: retrolefty on May 22, 2017, 12:31:41 amI've heard creationists say exactly that: That nothing is settled, evolution isn't proved, the debate is ongoing.Quote from: retrolefty on May 22, 2017, 12:31:41 amYeah, lets go with the heart. Things that sound nice and comforting to usmustbe truer than the things the nasty people say.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 01:17:22 am
content: Quote from: retrolefty on May 22, 2017, 12:31:41 amThat figure comes from more than one peer reviewed study. Links to the studies posted earlier in this thread.So there's that, then there's "spidey sense".

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 01:19:58 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 22, 2017, 01:17:22 amYep. It's interesting how none of the deniers have produced a single verifiable fact or figure so far. It's all gut feeling and opinion.

author: Hensingler
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 01:21:15 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 21, 2017, 10:28:49 pmYou mean like the ones from Bosch sold as 750W with an AAAA efficiency rating that automatically wind themselves up to 1.6kW when they detect they are actually picking up dust? Bosch didn't make them more efficient they made them bullshit EU efficiency test methods (rather like VW).Manufactures do not deliberately produce inefficient products. They may trade production cost for efficiency and why shouldn't the consumer be allowed the same choice.

author: Hensingler
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 01:35:05 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 22, 2017, 01:17:22 amThe 97% figure is utter bullshit, I don't know how anyone including Obama could be dumb enough to believe or quote it.Here is an article detailing how it was arrived athttp://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/global-warming-the-97-fallacy/15069

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 01:35:32 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 22, 2017, 12:01:00 amThe LIA returned relatively quickly to the "concensus" and the Roman warm period got a lot hotter since the hockeystick, the MWP will have its day.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 01:41:54 am
content: Quote from: Hensingler on September 27, 1974, 07:21:30 pmNo, it's verifiable fact based on several studues. From earlier in this thread:----Regarding the scientific consensus on AGW, it is based onmore than just one study:QuoteMore can be foundHEREIt's also a fact thatall the major scientific organizationssupport the tenets of AGW.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 01:56:18 am
content: I don't really care about their opinion about AGW, until they have a model worth a crap it's just so much hot air.For the moment global climate research is a historical science, not a predictive one. That's why the disappearance of the MWP and the hockeystick were so important ... although the hockeystick is already water under the bridge even for the "consensus" scientists.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 02:26:16 am
content: Quote from: Marco on May 22, 2017, 01:56:18 amMore anti-science gibberish, opinion, and made up nonsense. Not a single fact.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 08:23:10 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 22, 2017, 01:41:54 amDamn those Pesky Facts.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 09:57:17 am
content: Yes, the facts: The "scientists" are simply tweaking the knobs of their models year after year trying to match the "facts", those pesky facts...

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 10:02:15 am
content: Everybody should watch "an inconvenient truth" again and judge by themselves if that was scaremongering or not.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 10:06:06 am
content: Imagine Newton saying here's the law of universal gravitation, if it does not work simply adjust G to match.

author: FloFo
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 10:15:49 am
content: Anw how do you think G was determined? Making experiments and deriving the constant from these experiments. And it was refinied over a long periode by doing more accurate experiments ...Same is true for all scientific theories (even they might be calles laws): You make a theory based on assumptions, optimise them to fit your current knowledge/experimental data, make predictions from your theory which can be tested by an experiment, do the experiment and compare your prediction with the outcome, and then optimize your theory. THAT is scientific work.You can never proof that a theory/law is true, you can either show that it agrees with your current knowledge or show that it's not accurate and try to optimize it. Thats true for klimate simulation as well as for Newtons laws.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 10:19:18 am
content: I'm not interested enough to look up what WRT AGW means. Or if you are pro or against climate change. I've read soo much bullshit over the years, that it is just scary. Few days ago, I've read a science show, which stated, that the sea levels will not rise, because if you have ice in the water, and the ice melts, the level does not rise. They had a setup with ice cube in the glass. They did not mention, what happens with thermal expansion, or ice above the water.People believe whatever they want. They believe in the man in the sky. I dont want to change their belief. They also belíve that breaking the law is bad, so that is all we need to care about. Changing the laws.You dont need for everyone to agree, you just need to make sure, that stupid people dont get to say what to do.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 10:47:04 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 22, 2017, 02:26:16 amThe LIA is not a global phenomenon in recent Mann papers? (Who basically gets to define the concensus.) This doesn't in and of itself invalidate the original hockeystick graph?Didn't the predictions of pretty much all models from a couple decades ago start diverging from reality in the decades following?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 11:02:59 am
content: Quote from: Marco on May 22, 2017, 10:47:04 amThis kind of reasoning misses the big picture! You sound like someone who is convinced the earth is flat complaining the assumption the earth is shaped like an egg doesn't seem to be true to the earth must be flat.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 11:07:12 am
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on May 22, 2017, 10:19:18 amThat much is true, and in that sense, how well are we doing in your opinion?

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 12:01:33 pm
content: Quoteinconvenient truth the movie was just inconvenient scaremongering & propaganda exercise by the global deep state and that fraud al gore. its the same people that say humanity is a pest, the same people that seek to control all the global resources. the same people that fly around the world and hold big $$$ conferences calling for more taxes on the masses.

author: Tepe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 12:34:14 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on May 19, 2017, 05:06:02 pmA Maersk Triple-E has a capacity of 20,568 TEUs - a semi typically a capacity of 2 TEUs so let's compare such a ship to about 10,000 semi trucks hauling 20,000 TEUs

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 12:47:27 pm
content: QuoteFrom China to say NZ? I can't...

author: Hensingler
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 12:51:50 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 22, 2017, 08:23:10 amThe fact that Cook found about 28,000 authors of papers having something to do with climate. selected about 8,000 of them to ask by email and a self selected 1000 or so bothered to reply with 97% of them giving the same answer. I don't even know or care what the question was he got an opinion from a selected and self selected less than 4% of vaguely defined climate scientists then used it to claim a 97% consensus amongst all climate scientists.Such huge dishonesty doesn't inspire much confidence in the rest climate science and AGW proponent claims does it?That is the problem with good lies, they are still lies.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 01:37:12 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on May 22, 2017, 11:07:12 amVery well, especially the United States of 'merica, with their brand newrussian spyenvironment friendly president.And the European union. Look, they put a preference on diesel, beacuse it emits less CO2, and completely annihilates everything with Nox emissions. Absolutely brilliant.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 02:34:58 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 22, 2017, 11:02:59 amI didn't do any reasoning in that post, I asked rhetorical questions to prove my previous post did indeed contain more than a single fact.I am missing where they are hiding their science allowing them to claim the ability to make predictions. They can't do experiments, so testing for accurate predictions is the only way for them to somewhat test their theories. The last couple of decades have not been kind to them, better luck next couple. For now climate science as far as prediction is concerned has falsified theories and unproven theories.I don't believe in in any narrow definition of science ala Popper's philosophy of science ... but I'm not generous enough to see anything scientific about majority voting on unproven theories.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 04:40:56 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on May 22, 2017, 02:34:58 pmYou carefully snipped my remark about not taking a hint into a certain direction as proof something is going on.The fact is that a long term (a couple of decades) trend shows temperatures are rising globally. Ofcourse there are many factors at play so it is impossible to point at a single cause. Yet it has been made reasonably certain that putting more CO2 into the atmosphere isn't helping to make the temperature to fall again. Reducing the amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere is something we can change so I see no reason why we should not try that. Especially if we save money, preserve the remaining fossil fuels and reduce the dependency on supply from conflict zones at the same time.So far it is pretty straightforward. But when it comes to effects like melting ice, sea levels, CO2 sources/sinks, effects on the climate, etc it comes down to guestimates on how severe they are. But either way these are just logistical problems.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 05:56:01 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 22, 2017, 04:40:56 pmMore like a century with pauses.QuoteBut we don't actually try that, we fuck around in the margins and create mostly arbitrary market distortions and abusable subsidies.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 07:15:37 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on May 22, 2017, 05:56:01 pmThese ^ are the Pesky Facts I was referring to earlier.Who cares what the actual percentage of climate scientists is. 97%, 90%...? That's a complete strawman.Temperature is hard data.The chemistry of greenhouse gases is easy to understand, the amounts of gases in the air are measurable.You'd have to be an idiot not to grasp what's happening here.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 07:39:05 pm
content: The basics about the greenhouse effect are relatively easy - however the details, when it comes to saying on how much the temperature will rise is really difficult. Thus with the basics, there is usually consensus, but with the details there is still quite a controversy. The point that AGW "skeptics" are currently promoting is that humans are not the cause for warming - is kind of last resort. Before they claimed it was not even getting warmer, but ignoring facts is getting harder here. Especially the version of putting doubt to the source of the CO2 is kind of dump - not even a Donald Trump would buy this. The measured CO2 increase and coal / oil usage match reasonably well - here consensus should be more like 99.x % - with the rest not knowing about maths, getting paid for (or for a personal interest) making up fake news or just follow there favorite guru like a religion without thinking.As the topic is influencing our live, even if it is by politics spending some money on it or setting regulations, essentially anybody has a kind of opinion of AGW. However taking the consequences of AGW serious is a rather inconvenient truth: it would mean we should really cut down on CO2 releases and this would likely mean cutting down on our standard of living, though not directly as much as the reduction in emissions. The reductions currently proposed are no way enough. It is just a first step - a sustainable level would be more like < 1% of current levels.So we tend to ignore it, as long if we see the slightest chance that it might not end up as bad as the experts tell us. As climate is reacting slow - it would be more like our children or grandchildren that would pay the price. Even if the warming would stop due to no more new CO2, something like melting of the ice in Greenland and rising sea-level would continue for maybe a century. With other pollution and use of resources we tend to do the same. So this pattern is not specific to AGW, it is more like typical human.However there is some hope: Changing the economy to lower emissions is currently expensive for those who go ahead, but in the long run it may mean that they have the technology and patents for the future. So there might be a long term plan behind China dominating the market for solar modules, even if the are loosing some money on it now. Being late in the change may also mean becoming an underdeveloped country in the future.A tipping point for accepting AGW might be when the markets realize that is might not be a good idea to do long term investments in areas less than about 5 m above see level. So it is expected that at some time in the future housing prices in low lying cities like NewYork will collapse, once the flooding is accepted.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 08:07:43 pm
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on May 22, 2017, 07:39:05 pmIt is possible, to increase the standard of living and reduce emissions. Electric cars are higher quality, more reliable, clean, and less noisy than regular ones. Switching to electric cars would increase the quality. We can increase the quality of rails for long term travel, make car sharing or cheap renting avaliable, and crazy citys in the benelux can live on bicycles. Factories can run on solar and wind energy, polluting less. It is possible. It requires a large amount of investment, and it would create a strong economy, new jobs. I have no idea, what are they waiting for. I drive a hybrid, and when I dont live in an apartmant anymore, I will install solar. Maybe I could afford a model 3 or a golf GTE at some point, or a plug in I could probably solve the daily commute by electricity.1% IDK how possible that would be. As far as I understand, 7% of human CO2 emission comes from the humans themselves, and about 80% from fossil fuels.We can reach this from the other side also. Plant trees, and not burn them. Of course this should be on large scale, and it does not have to be trees, can be alga or something.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 08:43:48 pm
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on May 22, 2017, 07:39:05 pmAnd before that they all believed that volcanoes put out more CO2 then humans. That one lasted about a year IIRC.Quote from: Kleinstein on May 22, 2017, 07:39:05 pmI don't see why.A massive part of the CO2 comes from electricity generation. A big government-funded push for renewable energy wouldn't reduce anybody's standard of living and would create a lot of new jobs.The whole "you're gonna be driving a tiny car and living in a dimly lit hut" thing is beingpaid for by the oil companies.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 09:08:51 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on May 22, 2017, 08:07:43 pmDon't take this personal but this kind of crap is exactly what makes the greenies' ideas so unrealistic. In the NL they have been trying to price people out of the cars but it has had zero effect. The number of cars has been growing steadily.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 09:11:57 pm
content: I do not doubt that increase in CO2 is a byproduct of human behaviourBut I do doubt that main source is fossil fuels....See attachment for human population vs CO2 since 1850'ish. Some data is estimates but all from official sources. Data intervals with no data are interpolated. All sources listed in PNG text/k

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2017, 10:01:12 pm
content: A person produces about 1.5 kg of CO2 per day, one litre of gasoline about 2.6 kg. In both cases the O2 comes from the air, but the C in the gasoline comes from a fossil that's been sitting underground millions of years and the persons' C comes from food ultimately from plants that captured it from the air presumably not too long ago so that's somehow a closed cycle unlike the gasoline's. Or so it seems, if I'm not mistaken.

author: ziggyfish
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2017, 01:44:48 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 22, 2017, 08:23:10 amYeah, those pesky facts.I stopped believing in climate change, when the only excuse they could come up with to explain the current climate pause, was the extra heat isunder the couchin the oceans.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2017, 03:26:06 am
content: The post above is the perfect example of science illiteracy and pseudoscience run amok in the internet age It's astounding that even some posters on a technical forum can't make the distinction.What's next on EEVblog - people posting "creation science" videos?

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2017, 06:43:20 am
content: Quote from: ziggyfish on May 23, 2017, 01:44:48 amBecause youwantedto....and when youwantto, any old crap on the Internet sounds like solid evidence.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2017, 09:06:30 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 22, 2017, 09:08:51 pmI have a very strict differentiation between fanatics greens and greens. Fanatics will chain themselves to trees and "we should all ride bicycles". That is stupid. If there is a green revolution, it will be technology driven and it will improve things, not restrict me and not make my life less comfortable or more expensive.I believe in green revolution. Your country did a lot for that. As I recall 10+% of new car sales are plug in or electric. Steadily growing, and you have plans to phase out petrol engine. That is exactly, what they should do everywhere.There are plans to increase the usage of green energy in a clever way. There is a manager working on just this, sitting next to me. Working on variable pricing of electricity, social studies, etc. Trial runs are expected to start. Very simple concepts, like charging your car when the sun is shining. It requires infrastructure, data processing, smart meters, controllable chargers, websites, etc. The end result is higher solar production, and less fossil usage.It is simple. If you tell someone, that it is cheaper to use green energy, and buy the technology to reduce waste, pollution, they are going to do that. And maybe we can prevent half of Holland going underwater.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2017, 09:10:47 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 23, 2017, 03:26:06 amYep. The science/mechanisms behind greenhouse gases couldn't be clearer or easier to understand but these people refuse to believe because a single, relatively unimportant number might be 93% instead of 97%, or because nobody can tell themexactlyhow much the earth's temperature will rise this decade (to 0.00001 degrees C, please).These are theexact same peoplewho totally believed that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans - because they read somewhere it on the Internet!It'sall around. Science will still happen whether you believe in it or not.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2017, 09:29:11 am
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on May 23, 2017, 09:06:30 amYep. Electric cars are all-around better than gasoline/petrol cars.There's one remaining problem at the moment which is very long range. Most daily car use isn't a problem but sometimes people want to drive 1000 miles.My solution for that to rent a battery "trailer" that attaches to the back of the car. You drive into a battery station on the highway, hook one up, drive, drop it off when you arrive and pay for the electricity used. Change as many times as needed to complete your journey.The overall effort and extra delays needed for a long journey would about the same as filling up with gasoline/petrol1. As a driver you're driving you're not even going to see it behind your car.All we need is some nice designs2and a standard connector built into all new cars. If it's designed right it can be all automated so you don't even have to get out of your car to attach/remove them.How will this be a loss in "standard of living", unless you're an oil-baron?1If you can charge your car at home you're going to save an awful lot of trips to gas stations anyway.2Engineered to not restrict top speeds, obviously.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2017, 10:00:34 am
content: Quote from: kaz911 on May 22, 2017, 09:11:57 pmYou can create all kinds of graphs which hint in some direction but that doesn't prove there is an actual relation. Statistics is much harder (and often severely underestimated) than plotting data into a graph and look at it. Many scientists don't have a good grasp of statistics!

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2017, 10:08:22 am
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on May 23, 2017, 09:06:30 amI don't know anything about phasing out petrol engines. Diesel engines maybe. The NL is about the only country where you can't get E10 fuel (10% ethanol). Also the plugin hybrids where popular due to tax incentives which have already been stopped and hence the sale of plugin hybrids has dropped to insignificant levels. Nobody was using the batteries on their plugin hybrid cars. You do see a lot of Teslas in the NL though.BTW rising sea levels won't have any effect on the NL because keeping the water out means upgrading existing infrastructure which is a continuous process already.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2017, 10:19:07 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 23, 2017, 10:00:34 amSure, but the "relation" is a simple scientific phenomenon predicted over 100 years ago, ie. greenhouse gases vs. earth temperature. They're overlaying a graph of temperature and a graph of greenhouse gases and seeing if they match or not. There's not much room for massaging numbers when it's two simple sets of data against time.Believe it or not, the climate scientists are also trying to disprove their own theories by looking for other things that match. This is actual science, this is how it's done - not just by reading stuff on the Internet. Have they found anything? Not so far.nb. Most of the deniers theories have been tested too and found lacking, eg.solar activity.If the mechanism being proposed (ie. greenhouse gases) was long and complicated then the deniers might have a point. It isn't though. It's very simple.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2017, 11:18:58 am
content: QuoteThey do, in fact, because humans produce about naught, unless by humans you mean burning fossil fuels.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2017, 11:21:47 am
content: QuoteDefine "all-around better". Heavier, more expensive, less range and takes much longer to refill are not "better" things imo.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2017, 11:27:19 am
content: QuoteThings like these below, then... why?Quotehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/6636563/University-of-East-Anglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 23, 2017, 11:54:21 am
content: This thread and the poll has done it's dash.