Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 Next
Comments 65751 to 65800:
-
tomcj at 05:50 AM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
I am a civilian, who is amazed at the power of the so-called skeptics. This Sunday, January 29, 2012, the denier echo machine is all over Memeorandum siting a "NASA" prediction/or study that shows that we will have a new ice age. The media for denying global warming is very powerful, and I don't know how it is done, but http://www.skepticalscience.com needs to be referenced more so people without science backgrounds will know that scientists are NOT deeply divided over the facts and predictions. Thank you for fighting the good and great fight. -
Alexandre at 04:54 AM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
The broader public should know what kind of "peer review" is done at Energy&Environment. I wish it became clear for the public, or at least the mainstream media, what kind of "alternative view" E&E provides. Or Spencer, Christy, Lindzen and their fellows, for that matter. -
SeaHuck5891 at 04:02 AM on 30 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #3
I am new to the site and this is my first post. My question is this: Is it possible to include a feature that allows me to see when new comments have been added to each post since I last viewed it? For example, it could read "55 comments, 4 new." I like to read all the comments, and it is difficult to know when new comments have been added since I last viewed the post. Just wondering if this is an option. Thanks for the consideration and for making this site what it is.Moderator Response: Part of what you're asking for is accessible by clicking the Comments link in the blue horizontal bar at the top of the page. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:56 AM on 30 January 2012It's cooling
Climate-Change-Theory @ 178... What your chart tells us is that, except for one very brief period, the trend has been positive, and often strongly positive. And the trend is still at the high end. Looking at the trend of the trend tells you what? Zero, as far as I can tell. -
dana1981 at 03:30 AM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
Apologies, I also have a John McLean cooling prediction post in the works, and had intended to publish it first (in which case the McLean link in the post would have worked), but this post became more time-sensitive and thus was published first. When the McLean post is published this week, the link will then work. -
apiratelooksat50 at 03:30 AM on 30 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Rob Painting at 85 Are you stating that Malcolm L. McCallum's 2007 paper about "Amphibian Decline or Extinction?..." (found here) confirms global warming driven extinction? If so, it doesn't appear that you read past the abstract that you linked to back at #50. If you had you would have noticed that climate change was mentioned exactly once in the entire paper, and that was part of a list of potential causes which I paraphrase below. (For the complete text see the above link.) "The potential causes are numerous and include habitat degradation and loss, introduced species, pollution, contaminants, pathogens, climate change, or interactions among several factors Many of these implicated stressors trace directly or indirectly back to humans." There are numerous reasons for the increased extinction rate and of those climate change may be one and may also work synergistically with others. All of those potential reasons and their interactions need to be studied and acted on as necessary. Having a laser-like focus on just one cause is dangerous and not proper science. For instance, Mendelson and the IUCN are referenced in the paper for the following information. Since 1500 35 amphibian species have gone extinct, and 9 of those have occurred since 1980. Those numbers could be as high as 130 extinctions with 122 since 1980. Mendelson points to the chytrid fungus as the cause of the acceleration. That is not saying that climate change is not an issue, but it is saying that learning ways to combat chytrid is of greater importance. One promising treatment is using bacteria which lessens the mortality rate. It could be applied to large areas of soil and water. -
les at 02:35 AM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
8 - This Willam Happer? -
muoncounter at 02:34 AM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
JBob, A video from the Marshall Institute is not interesting in any way. And it is also off-topic. Further off-topic references will be deleted. -
J. Bob at 01:55 AM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
Interesting video, with Dr. William Happer, Princeton physics professor, on his view of global warming. http://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-global-warming-hoax/B951E1BE-01A3-4F92-B871-A4AB9B171419.html?mod=opinion_video_newsreel -
wingding at 01:21 AM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
I don't see any mention of the failure of David Archibald's last ridiculous global cooling prediction: http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=197 -
ClimateWatcher at 01:15 AM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
Those cooling prediction numbers do sound extreme. The interesting thing about solar influence is that we may be in the process of the experiment, if in fact cycle 25 represents a quiescent period. -
muoncounter at 01:07 AM on 30 January 2012It's cooling
Tom C, Your analysis of Cotton's copious mistakes is spot on. However, tamino may have come up with many great things, but that particular term originated with economists. This definition predates tamino's 2011 usage by some 5 years. Note these attributes of those who indulge: ...a combination of intellectual laziness and mistaken arrogance ... 'Nuff said. -
John Brookes at 23:07 PM on 29 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
I remember McLean's predictions, and at the time thinking, "why did he bother to make such a way out prediction?" The same question occurs to me now. Why would you make such a prediction? From elsewhere: 'That adds up to a whopping 4.9°C fall in temperate latitudes over the next 20 years. We can only hope he’s wrong. As David says ” The center of the Corn Belt, now in Iowa, will move south to Kansas.”' 4.9 C over the next 20 years! What is he smoking? -
Paul D at 22:30 PM on 29 January 2012Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
I think the use of the word 'carbon' isn't in order to make a bigger impact to the public, which is what the engineer seemed to think. It is used as a convenience word when having to deal with the complexity of the issues. But also carbon is the basis of producing CO2 and hence how we exploit it, is important and has consequences. -
les at 22:17 PM on 29 January 2012Models are unreliable
skywatcher... the Hermeneutics of Doug's "cut-off frequency being determined by Wien's Displacement theory" is clear. Claes Johnson looked at Wien's displacement law saw the Peak wavelength / frequency described as maximum and interpreted this as a cut-off - although hedged with "heavily attenuated" if you look at his writing. 1/ I can understand how a Swedish native speaker could confuse Maximum in the sense of Peak and in the sense of "the highest value possible". To a mathematical - rather than a physics - the error would be opaque. 2/ the "heavily attenuated" hedge is a bit odd as, as we all know, the distribution of BB radiation falls both above and below the maximum... 3/ none of this actually follows form Prof. Johnsonns conscious-quanta ... which stands alone in it's bizarrness. 4/ Doug does not have the where-withall to either read Prof. Johnsonns material in enough detail to see this nor to understand empirical physics which demonstrate it one way or the other. -
Tristan at 21:57 PM on 29 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
This is somewhat off-topic and could conceivably be considered advertising, but have any of the staff at this site considered promoting and/or reviewing the following game? I ask here because I'd be interested to hear pirate's view wrt incorporating such software into the education sphere in the US. It seems to be a powerful way of engaging young minds, it's thought provoking and built on the foundations of climate science and economics. -
Tristan at 21:45 PM on 29 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe, Intent to Intimidate
To answer William's comment, here's a quote from one well-known televangelist that seems to characterise the situation: "There’s no need for us to apologize for being blessed." When people start considering wealth as a "blessing from God", problems abound. ie. Anything that generates wealth is by definition, sanctioned by The Lord. -
skywatcher at 21:17 PM on 29 January 2012Models are unreliable
Cotton seems to think objects would be aware, when receiving radiation, the circumstances under which that radiation was emitted, whether blackbody or not. This is desperate, handwaving nonsense to defend a theory which, as Tom says, is not experimentally verified. -
Tom Curtis at 20:49 PM on 29 January 2012Models are unreliable
Doug Cotton @483, scientists are interested in theories which are wrong in interesting ways, ie, wrong in such a way that you learn something new in trying to refute it. Claes Johnson is wrong in that boring old way of just being absurd. He purports to derive a new theory of black body radiation which differs significantly from Planck's Law and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, both of which are fundamental to the theory of radiation and have been multiply confirmed by observation. In place of these he offers a theory with no experimental confirmation, which we no will be disconfirmed experimentally because its predictions differ from those of a theory which is well confirmed experimentally; and whose only intellectual virtue is that it would refute a common misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect. That is not an interesting theory. Of course nobody has tried to disprove it, anymore than actual geologists don't waste their time trying to disprove hollow earth theories. I ask you again to link to papers showing experimental confirmation of the theory. Your failure to either do so, or to reject the theory as unempirical nonsense would show you once again to be trolling, and I would ask the moderators to enforce against you the ban for repeating, unmitigated trolling that has led to your prior banning which you are currently violating. -
Tom Curtis at 20:29 PM on 29 January 2012It's cooling
Doug Cotton, if you want measure trends in temperature there is no reason to weight land temperatures differently from sea surface temperatures. Consequently there was no reason for you to exclude a third of the Earth's surface from your supposedly "logical and mathematical approach". Nor was there any reason to exclude 21% of the data in time. HadISST1 commences in 1871, not 1900. Including the data from 1871 to 1899 shows the pattern you claim to have detected in a single cycle does not hold outside the period you show:
Indeed, there was no reason to not show the Hadley Marine Air Temperature data (HadMAT) which extends back to 1856:
Doing so shows sixty years of declining sea temperatures terminating at the start of your "logical and mathematical approach". As sixty years is the duration of one cycle that you have purportedly detected, a sixty year period of declining sea temperatures resoundingly falsifies your model as a predictor of past, and hence presumably future sea surface temperatures.
Perhaps it is time you stopped plagiarizing Bob Tisdale by giving him blame for this analysis (there is no credit about it), and started relying on analysts who do not cherry pick their data.
Tamino came up for a name for this sort of statistical analysis that ignores data and ignores physics - mathturbation. I do not particularly like the term, but in this case it definitely applies.
(Source for HadISST and HadMAT graphs: Rayner et al, 2003)
-
Sapient Fridge at 20:09 PM on 29 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
Predictions of cooling have been made for years e.g. this article by Phil Chapman in "The Australian" predicting an ice age starting from 2008 which quite clearly has not come true as temperatures have continued to rise, not fall, since then. It's a shame there isn't a way of forcing newspapers to print a retraction, or at least an update, when observations don't match their predictions. BTW: The link to "John McLean's failed temperature prediction" doesn't work. -
Climate-Change-Theory at 20:01 PM on 29 January 2012Models are unreliable
Tom Curtis & Skywatcher @481 & 482 Regarding gases absorbing, see second paragraph here Regarding frost not melting, anecdotal only here For mathematical proof (which I have studied and agree with and which is not disproved) read Computational Blackbody Radiation. I am only interested in seeing any experiment (eg metal plates receiving backradiation at night) which demonstrates warming. Two identical radiators in open air warming up together will not help each other to warm faster because neither is hotter than the other. If they did you'd have energy creation. When the Earth surface and the first 1mm of the atmosphere are very close in temperature S-B law says there would be very little radiation. Microwaves (and lasers) are red herrings - they are not emitting spontaneous blackbody radiation - which is the subject above. Microwaves are a very special form of waves anyway which mostly only warm things like fat and water molecules up to boiling point only. They are irrelevant regarding backradiation. -
Rob Painting at 19:42 PM on 29 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Old Mole - "That's why I am flummoxed when hearing, from muon no less..." No need to be flummoxed there are a vast number of peer-reviewed scientific papers dealing with extinctions relating to global warming. You are grossly misrepresenting the situation, if you believe there is only one paper. Frogs, lizards, birds, butterflies have all gone extinct from global warming, and many, many thousands are poised at the precipice right now. Did you miss the current rate of amphibian extinction is 25,039–45,474 times the background extinction rate for amphibians? We'll be covering a number of these global warming-driven extinctions in the future. -
Climate-Change-Theory at 19:06 PM on 29 January 2012It's cooling
Tom: I suggest that weighting of land v. ocean should be in proportion to thermal energy content - ie roughly 1:15 so if you wish to throw in 1/15th weighting of land temperatures on top of sea surface I'm happy with that, but it can't make much difference. I am not proposing a theory when I am merely using a logical statistical and mathematical approach to analysing all sea surface data since 1900 and saying there is no evidence of any increase in the rate of increase about 100 years ago compared with current rates. Whichever way you look at the data, there is only a rise of the order of 0.05 to 0.06 deg.C per decade on average since 1900. Nothing suggests that an extrapolation to 2100 should exhibit a faster rate of increase in the underlying trend. If you produce any other analysis of that sea surface data since 1900 which shows a sound reason for a rise of significantly more than, say, 0.6 deg.C over the next 88 or 89 years until the year 2100 I will take my hat off to you if I can't fault your logic. Go for it! Here is the source of the original plot. -
skywatcher at 18:57 PM on 29 January 2012Models are unreliable
However, radiation which has frequencies significantly below the peak in the emitting spectrum cannot be converted to thermal energy and thus has no effect. It is immediately emitted with the same spectrum and intensity, thus leaving no energy behind. It might as well have been reflected because the end result is similar.
Anyone can go into their kitchen and disprove this canard. Please, Mr Cotton, tell me then how the humble microwave oven is able to heat my dinner. The microwave radiation, according to your obscure physicist's incorrect theory, is incapable of adding energy to my lunch, which naturally emits (dimly) in the longwave infrared band. After exposure to the microwave radiation, my lunch is warmer than it was before, but you say this is not possible... Perhaps microwave manufacturers are all in the worldwide conspiracy? -
Tom Curtis at 18:37 PM on 29 January 2012It's cooling
Doug Cotton (aka Climate Change Theory), the theory you are proposing here has no physical basis. Further, it requires very large changes in ocean heat content, and hence the total energy stored at the surface of the Earth with no change of energy in or out. Ergo it contradicts the conservation of energy. If you want us to overthrow one of the most fundamental laws of science, your going to have to show us more than a single cycle in some cherry picked data. And contrary to your claim, the Sea Surface Temperature data is not all the data there is. Last time I looked, the Earth's surface included both continents and an Arctic Ice Cap, inclusion of which would definitely change the trend line of the thirty year trends you show. (HadSST is not the only sea surface temperature product either.) -
Fran Barlow2 at 18:36 PM on 29 January 2012Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
Firstly, let me congratulate John on what was an excellent presentation. Dealing with Q & A is a lot harder than it might appear to those who have never done it. While I might quibble with some of John's responses here and there, I believe he got the hard bits right -- adequacy, salience, register. Well done him. One point I'd make concerns John's response on how to use the word "carbon" in this context. I believe it is perfectly apt to speak of "a carbon price" or "carbon pollution". Carbon is the key element in most of the drivers of anthropogenic climate change. While anthropogenic CO2 in the flux is at the heart of the issue, CH4 is also an issue, particularly when one considers the decomposition of the arctic permafrost or releases from coal mines and oil wells. The term "carbon" is a useful and accurate exercise in ellipsis. The objection of the deniers here is a disingenuous and specious piece of pedantry aimed at making the issue seem scientifically credentialled. I'm yet to meet anyone who confuses "carbon pollution" with soot or "black yucky stuff".Response: [JC] Interesting point re carbon being in CO2 and CH4. If I'd thought of that, I would've mentioned it :-) -
Tom Curtis at 18:29 PM on 29 January 2012Models are unreliable
Doug Cotton @477, the theory you have just proposed is complete nonsense, and in contradiction to inumerable experiments conducted primarily by the USAF to understand the behaviour of IR radiation in order to design effective heat seeking missiles, and FLIR cameras. If you expect us to believe us, you need to refer us to the actual scientific papers explaining the experiments you purport prove your theory, and giving the experimental results. Failing that, we will recognize it for the con it is, and continue to believe that IR lamps will warm a surface, contrary to the theory you have proposed. -
Old Mole at 17:49 PM on 29 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Forgive me for intruding on your learned discussion. I don't have a degree, know diddly squat about climate science and even less about frogs. What I do know, and can defend in most discussions, is that: 1. Climate change is real 2. It is happening right now 3. We are doing it 4. We had better get our act together and do something about it right quick, or things are going to get really bad, really soon SkS has certainly helped with my understanding, and consequently defend the positions, and I thank Dr. Cook and his cohorts for all the work they do ... and for the fundamental point that the science is evaluated through the entire body of evidence. That's why I am flummoxed when hearing, from muon no less, that a single paper (Pounds) "proves" something, or that another paper that cites Pounds (Thomas) is further proof. Frankly, that it the sort of reasoning I usually find over at Watts Up With That?, when they are discussing Soon and whatsername, or Christie or Lindzen. When pirate cited two more recent studies that apparently came to different conclusions, I didn't hear a peep about those, but got more about how Pounds was conclusive. Can't say I like the pattern. I don't think that just because the basic facts of climate science are settled, that all questions in science have been proven so conclusively ... and for all I know, the question of frog extinction might be one of them. I am not interested enough in frogs to check. But it sounds to me like pirate knows his frogs, however chuckleheaded he might be on climate change. You might cut him some slack, though ... he is from South Carolina, home of Bob Jones, Parris Island and Jim DeMint, so his view that global warming might not be a discredited hoax and a socialist plot to wreck the American economy already mark him as a dangerous radical, subject to summary lynching. While he might possibly be right about the exact wording of the first bullet point concerning extinction, his quotation from the last bullet point makes it clear that it needs to be withdrawn and revised: "It is possible to prepare for climate change and to avert the worst effects of it, but to do so we need to understand why climate change is happening and make informed choices as individuals and communities based on the scientific evidence. Information alone is not enough to choose appropriate policies and strategies to limit some climate changes and prepare society for changes that are already well under way, but without understanding the basic causes and effects of climate change, we will be unable to make informed decisions that will affect generations to come." That wording, as others have pointed out, is far too ambiguous and subject to misinterpretation ... it has no business being used as a teaching tool when you know it will be misinterpreted. Best wishes. -
Climate-Change-Theory at 17:45 PM on 29 January 2012It's cooling
Basically I am predicting that slight warming will continue for 100 to 200 years (maybe one degree (1 deg.C) higher in the trend by 2200) but natural cyclic cooling will then prevail for the following 500 years or so because of apparent natural cycles with about 1,000 year periodicity. Whatever you might think or say about whether the "Little Ice Age" or the "Medieval Warming Period" were worldwide phenomena, neither is the current warming period uniformly worldwide. (It was slightly warmer in the Arctic, for example, in the 1940's.) But there can be no doubt that worldwide mean temperatures were warmish in the 12th century and coolish in the 17th century. When we see that long-term natural trend rates are only of the order of 0.5 deg.C per century, the scenario of alternate natural rises and falls of the order of 2 to 2.5 deg.C over periods of 500 years is far from implausible. The data from which that "hockey stick" was invented came from land based tree ring data. Land surfaces contain only about 1/15th of the thermal energy (wrongly called "heat") that is in the oceans. Hence sea surface temperatures are a far better indication of what's happening. Actual temperature measurements in islands like Northern Ireland could be indicative of sea surface trends and these show a linear trend since 1792 - also increasing by about 0.6 deg.C per century. So there is clear evidence that rates of the order of 0.6 deg.C per century have been the norm since the Little Ice Age and have not increased at all due to industrialisation. -
Climate-Change-Theory at 16:40 PM on 29 January 2012It's cooling
Correction: Those rates should have an extra 0 of course, namely 0.06 deg.C per decade and 0.05 deg.C per decade. There is no way any logical extrapolation would show significantly greater rates of increase over the next century, so nothing in all the historical sea surface temperature data since 1900 gives any indication of a rise of more than about 0.5 degrees C in the trend by 2100. There could of course be random noise (or a natural 60 year cycle) causing temporary values above the trend, but the trend looks like increasing by only 0.4 to 0.5 degrees C by the year 2100. There are no grounds for assuming any increase in the rate of increase in temperatures based on this data. There is no anthropogenic component related to post-WWII industrialisation. -
DrTsk at 16:28 PM on 29 January 2012Models are unreliable
What an incoherent blabbermouth.. -
Utahn at 16:10 PM on 29 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
Usually I think of these guys as "true believers" in their crazy theories, but this is so out there that I'm biting my tongue to avoid moderation about motivation... -
Climate-Change-Theory at 16:05 PM on 29 January 2012It's cooling
So would you also say that the derivative and second derivative of a function tell you nothing about the original function? You would be in error if you did, and I suggest there are strong parallels with my argument. About 100 years ago sea surface temperatures were increasing at a rate of about 0.6 deg.C per decade, whereas now the yellow trend line shows they are only increasing at a rate of about 0.5 deg.C per decade. This I suggest is also supported by the fact that the second maximum gradient is lower than the first, meaning the world saw faster warming in the past when carbon dioxide levels were lower. -
DSL at 16:04 PM on 29 January 2012Models are unreliable
That's the first name that came to mind - style is much the same. -
scaddenp at 16:02 PM on 29 January 2012Models are unreliable
Doug Cotton? -
Climate-Change-Theory at 15:33 PM on 29 January 2012Models are unreliable
The models are unreliable because there is an implicit assumption that backradiation from a cooler atmosphere is capable of either (a) warming or (b) slowing the rate of cooling of a (significantly) warmer surface. In a new extension of the work of Einstein and Planck, computations on blackbody radiation have show conclusively that this is a physical impossibility. For any given temperature, a surface emits at a peak frequency (proportional to the absolute temperature) this cut-off frequency being determined by Wien's Displacement Law - see Wikipedia. (There is a maximum a bit above the peak as the distribution is strongly attenuated.) Coherent radiation which the Earth's surface receives and which has frequencies above the maximum (ie SW solar insolation) will all be converted to thermal energy which can be stored and subsequently emitted with the appropriate (lower) IR frequencies, or diffused into the atmosphere or transferred by evaporation. Such transfers by these thermodynamic means reduce the remaining energy available for radiation. This is why the Earth's surface does not act anything like a perfect blackbody. However, radiation which has frequencies significantly below the peak in the emitting spectrum cannot be converted to thermal energy and thus has no effect. It is immediately emitted with the same spectrum and intensity, thus leaving no energy behind. It might as well have been reflected because the end result is similar. This is why frost lying in a shady spot does not get melted all day long by backradiation, even if the ground and air are slightly above freezing point. This is why a gas will not absorb when an emitter is radiating (spontaneously) until that emitter is warmed above the temperature of the receiving surface. (Spectroscopy confirms this.) So it is a fact of physics now proven (and never disproven) that the assumed warming effect of backradiation cannot happen. Thus an atmospheric greenhouse effect assumed as a result of radiative transfer is a physical impossibility. Those who are well read will know of the "Computational Blackbody Radiation" note to which I am referring which was written by a widely published Professor of Applied Mathematics whose name has (predictably) been somewhat slurred due to misinterpretation and lack of understanding. Having had over 45 years experience in Physics I can vouch for the accuracy of his results in such computations which I realise may well be above the heads of many readers here. -
WheelsOC at 15:32 PM on 29 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
A prediction of drastic, unprecedented temperature plummeting in the near future. Hmmm, doesn't that strike anybody as being a bit "alarmist?" -
Rob Honeycutt at 15:29 PM on 29 January 2012It's cooling
Climate-Change-Theory... Really? A trend of the trends? I don't know if I could define that as "cogent." -
DrTsk at 15:01 PM on 29 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
This worse that Newt's Videos.... -
Waldo at 14:56 PM on 29 January 2012Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
Dana @ 49 Tom @ 50 Thank you for the input! That information has been helpful for me. -
Climate-Change-Theory at 14:53 PM on 29 January 2012It's cooling
Below is a cogent argument showing that, whilst warming is happening in the long-run, the gradient is decreasing and a maximum is likely by 2200, being only about 1 degree C above current levels. You will need to study what is being said here rather carefully before commenting ... The most informative plot I have seen compares gradients derived from 30 year trends calculated on a moving basis every month. This is not a plot of temperatures ...
Moderator Response: [RH] Fixed image width. -
JMykos at 14:06 PM on 29 January 2012A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
If the government said to all the coal fired power stations that we have had enough. In 2 years time you are only allowed 85% of the coal you use today. The next year it drops by 15% and so on. In 10 years time there would be no coal fired power stations. Need to do the same with coal exports. Companies would see the forthcoming opportunity and invest madly and the whole country would be chock full of renewable power stations. -
Marcus at 13:56 PM on 29 January 2012Bilal Bomani, Cutting Edge Biofuels from NASA
"Open raceway ponds can become contaminated with exotic species of algae". Simple, then, don't use open ponds-use a close looped system instead. I've seen systems that are force fed CO2 from power station flue gas (probably gas powered, not coal powered) to provide both their food supply & a source of circulation. Here is some info that might be of use: http://www.globalgreensolutionsinc.com/s/VertigroFAQ.asp -
adelady at 13:13 PM on 29 January 2012Bilal Bomani, Cutting Edge Biofuels from NASA
This work is really, really important. We need better fuels even if the conversion rates aren't marvelous to start with. Check out this Guardian piece I knew palm oil wasn't terribly wonderful. I really didn't expect it to be worse than drilled oil, let alone in the same unfriendly group as tar sands. -
adelady at 12:06 PM on 29 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
pirate - The latest update to climate zones for gardeners could be a handy starting point for discussions. Chicago Sun-Times No idea what would or wouldn't be suitable for various year standards. (I find myself quite disheartened when my tutoring students turn up with handouts or textbooks that I think belong in curriculum for 2 or 3 years earlier. That could just be a sign of grumpy-old-lady-ness. Standards have dropped since my day, hrrrrmpph.) -
Fran Barlow2 at 11:30 AM on 29 January 2012Bilal Bomani, Cutting Edge Biofuels from NASA
Open raceway ponds can become contaminated with exotic species of algae, which then out-compete the desired species for light and nuttient. You need to ensure that the desired species are robust relative to those endemic locally. The keys for me, as someone who has always been interested in 2nd Gen biofuels like algae, are EROEI, (though if the energy input is from low energy intensity and intermittent non-fossil HC the "EI" is not nearly so important) and scaleability. One needs something that will scale up to meet industrial level demand on short timelines, otherwise one has no more than a niche product. Nothing wrong with that, but if we are speaking of the heavy lifting to decarbonise ... Still, I admire the passion, and it's obviously R & D that is very worthwhile. Kudos to them. -
Paul D at 11:26 AM on 29 January 2012Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
The engineer at the back of the audience is incorrect regarding the terms 'climate change' and 'global warming'. 'Climate change' was used in the 70s before 'global warming', which became more prevalent in the 80s after Hansens presentation. This myth about the terms is so often used and so many incorrect theories from the skeptics are based on some incompetent journalist or loud mouth media blogger claiming there is a conspiracy. I think John Cook handled that question well. -
DrTsk at 10:31 AM on 29 January 2012Bilal Bomani, Cutting Edge Biofuels from NASA
The only problem is the productivity of the algae....too low.. -
apiratelooksat50 at 10:03 AM on 29 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Muon at 81 Thanks for pointing this out and we do use a lot of this material. Our Honors Physics teacher has even picked it up for his class. I often use other materials beside our textbook. As a matter of fact, this year I requested that we do not issue books to students and instead use a classroom set. Anything they need for homework can be accomplished by handouts, or they can "check out" a book from my room.
Prev 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 Next
