Hambone Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 I agree mostly about straight nukes. However small-scale nuclear may become safer and fairly cheap, easy to implement on a municipal scale. Maybe clean coal, though there seem to be issues with getting the sequestration going. Oil shales/sands take lots of energy and water resources, so the EROI seems too low and thus not too clean. I also like biochar, and other farming and land use practices to help sequester carbon. LNG and efficiency sound good, particularly in the shorter term. These are all largely doable today... so why not? It's the politics and power that comes with AGW. Our government sucks and I'll leave it at that. I also have to say that I have the flu, and I'm fighting a 102F fever at the moment. If I get any weirder it will be the fever talking. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 These are all largely doable today... so why not? It's the politics and power that comes with AGW. Our government sucks and I'll leave it at that. I also have to say that I have the flu, and I'm fighting a 102F fever at the moment. If I get any weirder it will be the fever talking. . Yes, please take care of your own warming situation! I agree that something like the oil subsidies and the ethanol lobby have been diverting some needed funds. Obama may be gettng rid of the oil subsidies though. Other things are being funded (e.g. solar power and electric cars), so we should applaud what is being done. There could be more on nuclear fusion I think (e.g. ITER & DEMO projects). I have heard of some congressional interest in biochar research for the farm bill, I wonder if that went through. Here's more info about what DOE is doing in a variety of areas. At least they are diversifying out of the weapons business a bit: http://www.eere.energy.gov/ Info on present costs: http://www.nrel.gov/...tech_costs.html Here's some interesting research for converting solar radiation directly into fuels with the help of cerium oxide: http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-12051167 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Your statement is disingenuous and reveals your political bias. Oil exploration is subsidized through tax credits, as it should be as it is in our strategic and economic interest to have ready access to large amounts of oil. The military presence in the middle east serves a strategic interest as well, though the moonbats like to claim it's "all about the oil". If that was the case why aren't we raping Iraq and Kuwait? How is what you re saying here contrary to what I posted? Yes, it is of strategic interests to us to have a reserve of oil. But why? Because we need oil to provide for our energy needs, correct? If those energy needs are offset renewable energy then there is much less of need for oil. The fact that you support subsidies for one form of energy production while at the same time decry the use of subsidies for another type of energy production is mind boggling. There is NOTHING remotely outlandish about claiming that our presence in the Persian Gulf region. In fact, you do it yourself right after claiming those who do are "moonbats". Of course it is a strategic interest. But why? The obvious answer is because of the mount of oil in the region. The fundamental reason for any military presence in the Persian Gulf is always oil. I never once said or even hinted that the United States was going to hijack the Kuwait or Iraq oil reserves. I merely pointed out that our tax dollars go into pay for a very large military presence necessary in order to preserve the security of the oil supply and that cost is not passed onto the users of said oil. That is the definition of a subsidy. China is far from a "capitalist nation" they prop up their currency and subsidize many of their industries... particularly energy sciences. That said they have the largest coal reserves on earth and will dramatically increase their reliance on coal burning for energy production through the next 40 years. In amounts so great, that regardless of what we do, we can never offset their contribution of carbon to the atmosphere. The type of government China has and what they do with their currency is completely irrelevant. The fact is that the largest amount of investment into renewable energy resources in the world is in China. Whether the investment comes from private or national interests does not change the fact that if the innovation for new technologies is not in America we will pay more for the technology in the end and we will not reap the benefits from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 Hansen's three favorite words are "warmest year ever." Now how does Hansen reach that conclusion? It's simple. Fudge the data by cooling the past data and adjusting the temperature upward in latter data would cause a steeper slope in the temperature record. Too easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 First, how do you know the "fudging" isn't done for a good scientific reason - please explain. Second, what are the year rankings without the "fudging"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 First, how do you know the "fudging" isn't done for a good scientific reason - please explain. Second, what are the year rankings without the "fudging"? I would actually assume that with UHI, they should naturally adjust the temperature downward, but they adjust it upward... as well as the deletions of several rural stations. This quote is from flogger on another Forum. I can provide a very good example of the cynical data manipulation I allude to. Last year I was looking at NASA-GISS surface temperature data for Alaska; and I noticed something odd... The number of surface stations being used to calculate temperature trends has been reduced since James Hansen became Director of NASA-GISS... And drastically reduced since 1988 - The same year that NASA-GISS Director James Hansen made his first hysterical prediction of disastrous anthropogenic global warming with a model that has been subsequently proven to be totally wrong. http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/d… At one time there were 33 surface stations within a 655 km radius of a point (65.4 N,157.5 W) I selected in Alaska; now there are only 7... 2 of which are in urbanized areas. In 1991, three years after Hansen's dire prediction, 7 rural stations were dropped. Tanana shows the 1920-1940 Arctic Warming and the 1976 Pacific Climate Shift; but not much in the way of a secular warming trend... http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/d… University Exp Stn shows the 1920-1940 Arctic Warming and the 1976 Pacific Climate Shift; but not much in the way of a secular warming trend... http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/d… Mantanuska shows the 1920-1940 Arctic Warming and the 1976 Pacific Climate Shift; but not much in the way of a secular warming trend... http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/d… Iliama Faa Ap shows cooling after the 1920-1940 Arctic Warming and the 1976 Pacific Climate Shift; but not much in the way of a secular warming trend... http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/d… Mckinley Park shows 1920-1940 Arctic Warming and the 1976 Pacific Climate Shift; and a secular cooling trend... http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/d… Unalakleet shows a secular cooling trend the 1976 Pacific Climate Shift... http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/d… Puntilla shows cooling after the 1920-1940 Arctic Warming and the 1976 Pacific Climate Shift; but not much in the way of a secular warming trend... http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/d… Is it possible that these stations were dropped because they were "inconvenient"..... you betcha ? I suppose these stations could have been dropped because of budget cuts or just forgotten about (that recently happened near Honolulu) but I rather doubt it. In 1995, 5 more rural stations were dropped. Here is a comparison of the stations currently in use by NASS-GISS to the stations dropped in 1991. The "blue curve" is the 3-year moving average of the 7 active stations in the study area and the "dark red curve" is the 3-year moving average of the 7 stations dropped in 1991... http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/d… It's readily apparent that the dropped stations were recording higher temperatures during the 1920-1940 Arctic Warming than the current stations did. By dropping the older, warmer data points, NASA-GISS has made the warming since the 1976 Pacific Climate Shift appear to be more significant than it would appear if the older, warmer data were included. The 7 stations dropped in 1991 give the impression that the warming of the late 20th century was no different than the warming of the early 20th century... While the retained stations give the impression that the late 20th century warming was of significantly greater magnitude than the early 20th century warming. NASA-GISS (GISTEMP) data series also appears to have been retroactively changing... http://zapruder.nl/images/uploads/screen… I can understand a temperature series changing as new observations are added. But it appears that GISTEMP is changing in the past. Oddly enough, it seems to be retroactively changing as data are removed. From 1999-2008, Hansen, Schmidt and the rest of the crack junk science team managed to cause the 1930's to cool, when we now know in fact that 1934 was the warmest year on record due to the diligence of an amateur enthusiast who went over their numbers with a pocket calculator !. Source(s): GISS Surface Temperature Analysis - Station List Search: (65.4 N,157.5 W) http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistem… NASA GISS: adjustments galore, rewriting U.S. climate history http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/na… If ever there was an example of the facts historical or otherwise being bent to fit this highly lucrative multi billion dollar theory its in the collection and collation of temperature data both current and historic with always upwards 'adjusted/deleted ' data sets both past and present. I have no problems with more efficient technologies replacing older methodologies but when they are used to manipulate data to fit a premise thats something different entirely. I've just used Alaska as one example because it had fairly comprehensive historical datasets but there are many others you could find for yourselves. Since 1980 the number of stations used has declined from about 6,000 to about 1,300; with 2/3 of the station cuts occurring since 1988... The above is just one example of just how this has been going on, and what is being rather cynically 'achieved' by doing so. I was actually warned on another forum if I link to another forum, so I will not put the link here. The yearly rankings without the fudging It's so simple what the GISS did in their dataset. Is there any scientific explaination for this at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 First, how do you know the "fudging" isn't done for a good scientific reason - please explain. Second, what are the year rankings without the "fudging"? Why don't you tell us why it was done for good scientific reasons? Seeing as Snowlover answered your question, why don't you answer mine. This should be good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 I would actually assume that with UHI, they should naturally adjust the temperature downward, but they adjust it upward... as well as the deletions of several rural stations. This quote is from flogger on another Forum. I was actually warned on another forum if I link to another forum, so I will not put the link here. It's so simple what the GISS did in their dataset. Is there any scientific explaination for this at all? The data ALREADY is adjusted for UHI. Now it is being adjusted for other things as well. This has been explained to you MANY MANY times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Why don't you tell us why it was done for good scientific reasons? Seeing as Snowlover answered your question, why don't you answer mine. This should be good. This information has already been posted on this forum dozens of times. A simple google search of the NASA or NOAA webpages would answer your question. If you still can't find it, I will post some links for you tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Skier, stop with your bullsh*t already, there has been NOTHING posted on this. Get your facts straight. Why would NASA refuse FOI requests? We're still waiting for your "analysis" on the UAH vs GISS in the antarctic.....ahem......fudged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 The data ALREADY is adjusted for UHI. Now it is being adjusted for other things as well. This has been explained to you MANY MANY times. What factors other than the UHI would cause adjustments in that particular magnitude? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Skier, stop with your bullsh*t already, there has been NOTHING posted on this. Get your facts straight. Why would NASA refuse FOI requests? We're still waiting for your "analysis" on the UAH vs GISS in the antarctic.....ahem......fudged I have provided you with the scientific papers explaining the adjustments multiple times in the past. If you refuse to read or acknowledge them, there is nothing I can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 I have provided you with the scientific papers explaining the adjustments multiple times in the past. If you refuse to read or acknowledge them, there is nothing I can do. You haven't posted crap. Where is the data? Wait.....was it that 3 paragraph blog post on realclimate that has already been debunked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 You haven't posted crap. Where is the data? Wait.....was it that 3 paragraph blog post on realclimate that has already been debunked? It's good to see that American has people that divert conversations as well. I wonder if Skier visits multiple sites as a rabble rouser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 You haven't posted crap. Where is the data? Wait.....was it that 3 paragraph blog post on realclimate that has already been debunked? No I have provided you links to multiple scientific papers and the NOAA and NASA websites explaining why and how the temperature series have been adjusted. I can not do anything if you do not read or understand these links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbutts Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Skierinvermont, how old are you and what do you do, other than ski? I'm 57 and the CEO of a $200mm financial services business with tangential interests in climate change. It's not the major part of our business, but it has an impact in terms of business viability, building codes, tax issues. How are you vested in what you're proselytizing? How much skin have you got in the game? The impact for you very simply is, avoid any painful adjustment for a few years so you can retire comfortably. If climate change is in fact a complete farce and the government suddenly admitted that, it would be financially beneficial for you and your company, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 No I have provided you links to multiple scientific papers and the NOAA and NASA websites explaining why and how the temperature series have been adjusted. I can not do anything if you do not read or understand these links. Stop the bullsh*t my friend. Once again you haven't posted squat. Prove me wrong by posting them again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Stop the bullsh*t my friend. Once again you haven't posted squat. Prove me wrong by posting them again. Why should I waste my time? Is there any reason to believe the 13th time will be any different than the other 12? I am not your school teacher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beneficii Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Stop the bullsh*t my friend. Once again you haven't posted squat. Prove me wrong by posting them again. LOL, you just admitted that he had already posted them. Why don't you do him the courtesy of finding them and actually reading them? Otherwise, why should any of us bother? In another thread, you yourself said that it is 34 years too early to try to convince you of AGW, so why would we want to put all that time into just putting stuff up that you won't read or understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 LOL, you just admitted that he had already posted them. Why don't you do him the courtesy of finding them and actually reading them? Otherwise, why should any of us bother? In another thread, you yourself said that it is 34 years too early to try to convince you of AGW, so why would we want to put all that time into just putting stuff up that you won't read or understand? LOL .. good point. How can I post something again which I have never posted? I guess in Bethesdaland anything is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Politics has over taken the funding...and he is a big AGWer. Its hurting his own field...he says all the funding is climate science and it doesn't matter what he studies. This seems to be a problem in all the sciences... which is why you also see corruption within the pharmaceutical industry and the agency that *supposedly* regulates it. Money and big business (as well as politics) corrupt scientific endeavors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 LOL .. good point. How can I post something again which I have never posted? I guess in Bethesdaland anything is possible. Another one for the record books! No brains? I said if you claim you posted them, post them again........is that so hard to ask? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beneficii Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Another one for the record books! No brains? I said if you claim you posted them, post them again........is that so hard to ask? You wouldn't be convinced by them, anyway. You said that it is 34 years too early to try to convince you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 You wouldn't be convinced by them, anyway. You said that it is 34 years too early to try to convince you. 34 years? Hehe Thing is, you know what I meant the whole time when saying "you claim to have posted them, so do it again", in meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 34 years? Hehe Thing is, you know what I meant the whole time when saying "you claim to have posted them, so do it again", in meaning. Well obviously the laws of physics will be different 34 years from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Well obviously the laws of physics will be different 34 years from now. That's an absolutely absurd statement. How will properties of matter change in 34 years? I'll remember to quote this in the future... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beneficii Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 That's an absolutely absurd statement. How will properties of matter change in 34 years? I'll remember to quote this in the future... This makes me so glad you're limited to 5 posts a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 This makes me so glad you're limited to 5 posts a day. Please stop acting like a Toddler, these kind of posts are what make people want to put you on ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 That's an absolutely absurd statement. How will properties of matter change in 34 years? I'll remember to quote this in the future... I think your sarcasm detector is broken... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 I think your sarcasm detector is broken... huh? Your post was childish, what does that have to do with sarcasm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.