Recent Comments

Prev  1511  1512  1513  1514  1515  1516  1517  1518  1519  1520  1521  1522  1523  1524  1525  1526  Next

Comments 75901 to 75950:

75901. Camburn at 23:28 PM on 3 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       muoncounter: This isn't a partial truth. So far in the Bakken, we have not had a problem. That is the actual truth. Marcus: The potential generation from anerobic bacteria is small, and very expensive. To get a large scale generation plant, the displacement of organic matter from the soils to a central point is large. The long term effects of taking organic matter from soils to a central location to generate energy does not justify this idea.
75902. Paul D at 23:19 PM on 3 September 2011
       Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
       The Jasper Kirkby CERN paper was published by Nature which I assume would have rejected the Spencer paper. So anti-AGW principles seem to be flexible. If Nature rejects a paper, there is a conspiracy, if a paper is excepted, the conspiracy is forgotten.
75903. muoncounter at 22:39 PM on 3 September 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       DougC: Still haven't found any peer reviewed science in support of your pet theory? #204: "if the radius of the Earth were 9Km less, then, where the deepest borehole in Germany is located, it would be about 250 to 270 deg.C on the surface" That's a howler. The temperature gradient in the shallow borehole (9.1 km is shallow on the scale of the earth's radius) is linear. Radiation increases as the fourth power of temperature. In your slightly smaller earth hypothetical, 270 C at the surface results in much higher radiative loss, which therefore cools more quickly (unless trapped by greenhouse gases). Note: following are responses to points in a comment that was deleted (for good reasons) as I wrote this. These points do not violate CP. "effect of inflowing solar insolation is easily distinguished in the borehole data. The trend provides quantification." This is becoming Byzantine. Solar radiation at the surface flows into boreholes? Isn't the heat flow from the center of the earth, according to your postulates, a fairly large quantity in the opposite direction? Please explain that notion. "you are going to see Professors of Physics like Nahle rising up in unison." With due respect to Prf. Nahle (of the Mexican greenhouse experiments, said to 'confirm' the old Wood greenhouse-made-of-salt experiment), we do indeed have a small number of professors rising up against the AGW matter. However, none of their attempts at 'smashing' have succeeded and none of them posit that heat from the core has any impact whatsoever. These self-proclaimed 'bombshell experiments' only prove two things: a. small structures are a poor analogy to the earth/atmosphere system and b. the general public and self-taught pseudo-science 'skeptics' are easily swayed by hyped headlines. Then they go blog about it. Perhaps that last point is why you are having such difficulty finding any peer-reviewed research that supports your ideas. Until such time, you must agree that these ideas are merely your opinions. BTW, where is this article of yours published?
75904. muoncounter at 22:22 PM on 3 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       Camburn#20: The Bakken is a naturally fractured shale. Horizontal wells drilled there years ago targeted these natural fracture systems; a horizontal wellbore has a greater chance of intercepting the more vertical fracture planes than do the conventional vertical wellbores. That is not the issue here. The massive fracs of the current round of horizontal boreholes that are under discussion here are a relatively newer application of older technology. Read the source you cite, which is dated January 2008: The third and current generation of horizontal drilling is a result of attaining much longer, deeper and more accurate placement of multiple horizontal well bores to exploit fractured source rocks (where it is coupled with new hydraulic fracturing technology) and heat injection wells (Canadian oil sands steam assisted gravity drainage) intended to boost both production rates and recovery factors. The present middle Bakken play in North Dakota and eastern Montana is an example of third generation horizontal drilling applications -- emphasis added Analogies: We had color TV sets 20 years ago, but we didn't have flat screen LCD. No one has 20 years of experience with flat screen TVs. We had particle accelerators 20 years ago, but we didn't have energies of 7 TeV until the LHC was finished. No one has 20 years of experience with such high energy. Moral: Merely repeating a partial truth over and over does not make it the whole truth.
75905. Tom Curtis at 22:00 PM on 3 September 2011
       Models are unreliable
       Eclipse @386: 1) Doug Cotton is certainly not in a position to judge this (see point 4), and indeed is completely wrong. Specifically, climate models very accurately predict the change in radiative forcing due to changes in greenhouse gas levels. To give you an idea how accurate line by line models are in those predictions, here is a comparison of model data (dotted line) and observed data (solid line) over the Gulf of Mexico: Global circulation models are not quite that exact, but more than exact enough to narrow the expected temperature rise per doubling of CO2 to the range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C. Copious physical evidence from diverse sources narrows that still further to 2 to 4.5 degrees C, with a most probable value of 3 degrees C. 2) An as yet unpublished paper that refutes a well established theory is worth no more than the paper it is currently printed on. In fact,from clues about the contents of that paper Cotton has left on this website, the paper is not only unpublished but unpublishable as it shows no knowledge of basic physical laws, including those relating to thermal conduction (the theory on which the paper is supposedly grounded), but also directly contradicts well determined measures of heat flux from the core to the surface. (I have linked you to my posts, but other posters have equally effectively rebutted Cotton's nonsense.) 3) Cotton just made that 99% figure up. In fact, the reduced rate of global warming is not unexpected given high aerosol emissions by China, a recent solar minimum lower than anything since 1910, and three strong La Nina's in just four years. But China is curtailing its emissions, La Nina's come and go, and the Sun is now well into its next solar cycle so expectations of anything but renewed warming are just wishful thinking. 4) Curiously I am responsible for this belief by Cotton. He came on this site saying the majority of thermal emissions from the Earth's atmosphere were from oxygen and nitrogen. This is an absurd falsity. When I demonstrated to him that he was wrong, he without pause or consideration switched to this new theory. He had just made a massive change in his theory but it made no difference at all to his conclusion, ie, that global warming is false. It is safe to conclude that Cotton want's to retain that conclusion, and no near detail of fact or logic will be allowed to prevent him from doing so. He is one of those unfortunate people of whom it can be said that he is always in error, but never in doubt.
75906. Tom Curtis at 21:26 PM on 3 September 2011
       Models are unreliable
       DB inline @386, if only Doug Cotton where so succinct, and so sane in his theories.
75907. Tom Curtis at 21:22 PM on 3 September 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       DouglasCotton @208, in the Analytic Theory of Heat (1878), Joseph Fourier proved that if heat is conducted between a warmer and a colder surface, regardless of the difference in temperature between the two, the temperature gradient will be linear. The proof only applies between parallel surfaces, but for the Earth, the surface and a sphere 100 miles within surface approximate to parallel surfaces, so for practical purposes it applies. The immediate consequence of this is that if you find, in your bore holes, a near linear temperature gradient from the interior to the surface, all that you can conclude is that the temperature of the interior surface and at the surface are near constant, for that is a sufficient condition to generate that linear pattern. As it is known that within a few meters of the surface, diurnal and seasonal temperature variations are smoothed out, no further mystery remains for explanation. As Science of Doom puts it,

       "The basic equation of heat conduction is: q = kA . ΔT/Δx (see note 1) where ΔT is the temperature difference, Δx is the thickness of the wall, A is the area, k is the conductivity (the property of the material) and q is the heat flow. To make things slightly easier we consider heat flux – heat flow per unit area, q”: q” = k . ΔT/Δx"

       Very importantly, the rate of heat flow is directly proportional to ΔT/Δx, the change of temperature with distance. A very slow change of temperature with distance shows a very slow rate of heat transfer. A temperature gradient of 0.0276 degrees K/m (as detected in the KTB borehole) shows a very slow rate of heat transfer, inconsistent with your theory. The normal conductivity of rock is between 2 and 7 W/(m.K). Taking the high value, a 0.276 K/m thermal gradient represents a heat flux of just 0.1932 W/m^2, clearly inconsequential compared to the global average 240 W/m^2 received from the Sun. Your analogy of the coffee mug is clearly only applicable where the ambient external temperature is lower than the temperature the surface would be raised to from internal conduction alone, something which is clearly not true of the Earth. Again, and obviously, if it where true, the temperature gradient between equator and poles would effectively vanish.
75908. Bern at 19:55 PM on 3 September 2011
       Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
       I've already seen comments around the blogs that are citing this as 'evidence' that the Great Global Conspiracy of Climate Scientists have 'gotten to' the editor, forcing him to resign. Mind you, the same commenters are claiming that it's obvious & readily apparent that Spencer is completely correct, the other 98% of climate scientists are completely wrong, and furthermore that recent CERN paper 'proves' that CO2 doesn't cause warming! All this and more is apparently quite obvious if only you 'read between the lines' to see what those scientific papers really mean...
75909. Eclipse at 18:30 PM on 3 September 2011
       Models are unreliable
       This was my (rather embarrassing and ill informed) tentative reply. *** I'm no scientist Doug, but isn't it the case that thermodynamics states heat energy can't move from a hot source to a hotter source? Doesn't heat always travel 'down' temperature grades? If greenhouse gases are emitting IR heat that they've prevented from radiating out into space, then surely the GHG's are the ones warming the other gases, not the other way around?
       Response:

       [DB] "isn't it the case that thermodynamics states heat energy can't move from a hot source to a hotter source?"

       The 2nd Law refers to Net heat exchange...

       "Doesn't heat always travel 'down' temperature grades?"

       For convection, yes.  Back radiation is 360 degrees...

75910. Eclipse at 18:22 PM on 3 September 2011
       Models are unreliable
       "The Conversation" has a sceptic asking the following. Anyone got an answer? Doug Cotton starts with this... < quote > Speaking of error bars, Michael, in this paper http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004.../2003JD004457.shtml Zhang et al claim to "reduce the overall uncertainties from 10–15 to 5–10 W/m2 at TOA and from 20–25 to 10–15 W/m2 at SRF." Now, empirical data appears to suggest that the difference between upwelling and downwelling flux at TOA tends to range between about plus and minus 0.5% of total incoming insolation. It seems to me that those error bars are, in most cases, too large to even confirm with certainty whether the net flux is positive or negative, that is, whether we should expect warming or cooling. < end quote > Then claims this: < quote > Doug Cotton Doug Cotton Maths and Physics university tutor Score: +1 insightful + report abuse • unconstructive - I don't think that is really the case Michael. The post below was just deleted within an hour from today's thread about media reporting. Yes, I agree there is a "consensus among scientists" but history is full of examples when "the science" of the day, or "the medicine" of the day has ultimately been proven wrong. Majorities are not always right. So why should the media block out those who put forward legitimate questions about the science? Without such questioning (which should not be equated with scepticism) nothing will ever change in this world and errors will be perpetuated. There are four main areas, as I see it, which need careful consideration in the climate debate and which I, for one, question: (1) The degree of accuracy in the models used by the IPCC and others is simply not sufficient to prove that warming should be happening. In general, they determine the difference between downwelling and upwelling radiation and it is only this difference which (depending on its sign) indicates warming or cooling. But the difference in fact is rarely more than 0.5% (plus or minus) of the total incoming solar insolation. The error in the figures used to determine such a difference is greater than that. Hence there is no valid proof from the models than we have +0.5% rather than, say, -0.5%. (2) An as yet unpublished study of temperature data from hundreds of boreholes (being prepared by myself and colleagues) reveals that there is a very strong correlation between surface temperatures and the temperatures determined by an extrapolation of the underground temperature plot determined only from measurements more than 200 metres underground which are well beyond the influence of solar insolation. The probability of this happening at random is absolutely infinitesimal. Hence we can deduce that underground temperatures supported by heat flowing out from the core are the forcing factors, rather than any processes relating to solar insolation or gases in the atmosphere. (3) Trenberth's trend (shown at the top here http://climate-change-theory.com ) shows a curved line now past its maximum and starting to decline. Adding data to 31 Aug 2011 shows that downward trend continuing. (Sea surface temperatures (using highly accurate NASA data) are probably the best indicator because about 90% of heat above the crust is stored in the oceans and sea ice.) The gradient of this curved trend is now statistically significantly different from the lowest gradient of IPCC projections. This proves such projections incorrect with 99% probability. (4) The role of greenhouse gases in radiating away heat obtained by collision with non-greenhouse molecules would not appear to be considered in the models. Oxygen in particular is a very stable molecule which radiates very little itself at atmospheric temperatures. Nitrogen is a close second. Quantum mechanics shows why molecules can only radiate the frequencies (wavelengths) which they can also absorb. < end quote > And this: < quote> "Yes, we know IR radiation is captured by GH gas molecules, and further photons are then re-emitted. The emission of even more photons takes place as the GH gas molecules (including CO2 of course) cool off. Some of the radiation goes back to Earth, then heats the Earth and more conduction and radiation occurs as a result. Heat is carried upwards partly by radiation and partly by physical movement of molecules - ie convection. Eventually, between 99.5% and 100.5% of all incoming solar insolation is radiated to space. So yes, GH gas can delay the process by a few minutes, maybe an hour or two, but it can also speed up the process of cooling 98% of air molecules. Who knows which dominates? By night nearly all heat will escape, except in local summer when the oceans will warm, but lose their extra heat again by winter. The models appear to "overlook" the above potential cooling effect. But, even if I'm wrong on that (and someone else show me where) the models are still not accurate enough to be able to determine whether it is 99.5% or 100.5% and that makes all the difference between warming and cooling. The world has been misled by bad statistical accounting for margins of error. You simply can't take a difference of two numbers each over 300 (with errors about plus or minus 5) and prove that the difference is +1 rather than -1 for example. " < end quote > Anyone got any papers on this?
       Response:

       [DB] Eclipse, Mr. Cotton feels his own special pet hypothesis, using as-yet-undiscovered physics, proves that the Earth is warm due to heat escaping from it's core. 

       Thus, he (Mr. Cotton) is right despite a lack of any published studies to support his position.  And therefore hundreds of years of research by hundreds of thousands of scientists is wrong, despite an overwhelming amount of physical evidence to the contrary.

       Dialogue with Mr. Cotton is thus impossible, as science says that 2+2=4.  Mr. Cotton says it equals 16 and also that on Tuesdays water flows uphill, the sky is green and the Moon is actually made of cheese (Edam, I believe...as we could smell it from here if it was Limburger).

75911. Marcus at 18:21 PM on 3 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       Camburn, according to this site: http://www.jgpress.com/archives/_free/002318.html there are over 150 anaerobic digesters in the US, not 2 as you claim. Though the majority of them are associated with sheep & cattle farms, advances in the understanding of enzymes that break down cellulose (like those in Pandas & Termites) will allow crop waste to be increasingly used as a feed-stock. Also, the by-products of digestion are sufficiently rich in nutrients for them to be useful to crop & pasture farmers. My point is this-why defend a fairly risky technique for extracting non-renewable sources of gas when we have perfectly acceptable sources of gas which can be obtained in a far more benign & sustainable fashion?
75912. Rob Painting at 16:43 PM on 3 September 2011
       Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
       Ken @ 26 -"The Wright Brothers were competing with Langley" Unless either of those two parties were massively wealthy, and receiving massive subsidies from the government, your analogy is a false one. " If it bothers you that people are getting wealthy with government subsidies, we are on the same page..." No, different chapter, perhaps even a different book. What troubles me is that a 100 year old industry (older actually if you include coal and gas) is still receiving handouts at the taxpayers expense. How is that in any shape or form connected to free-market ideals? And, of course, what really concerns me is the incredible damage being done to the environment, not only through the extraction process itself, but the the long-term climate effects of fossil fuel combustion, which are largely irreversible on human timeframes. "so I just designed and had manufactured a one-of-a-kind telescope mount prototype.... Good for you Ken, but how is that going to prevent the oceans acidifying and all but eliminating coral reefs from the planet for instance?
75913. Tom Curtis at 16:29 PM on 3 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       Rosco @47, I have explained it in steps so small a grade 9 education is sufficient to follow, as proved by my explaining it to my daughter (who will no doubt have a good laugh if I show her this conversation). If you have not understood it, read again with care. It is not too hard. You have not raised any interesting questions about the moon. You have merely cited a vaguely remembered maximum temperature. Apparently you base all your reasoning on the assumption that the maximum temperature is the only relevant temperature, but I am disinclined to follow you in that absurdity.
75914. Marcus at 16:15 PM on 3 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       Camburn, I find it highly offensive for you to question my knowledge of soil science when all you've given us to back yourself up so far is very weak anecdotal "evidence" to back your claims, both in relation to the "safety" of frakking & the "dangers" of anaerobic digestion & capture of fugitive emissions as a viable alternative to frakking. The desperation with which you deny global warming & defend the coal & oil industry leaves me with very valid questions about what you *really* do for a living.
75915. Albatross at 15:40 PM on 3 September 2011
       Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
       I highly recommend that readers consult this excellent (and easy to read) summary of this sad situation that has been published by Dr. Michael Ashley.
75916. Albatross at 15:29 PM on 3 September 2011
       Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
       This should be about the science, but sadly Spencer and his fellow 'skeptics' (e.g., Michaels, Lindzen, Christy) have been actively politicizing the science in any sympathetic media outlet or right-wing think tank that will give them space. Remember how Spencer held a press conference in Cancun the very hour that Dessler's paper was no longer embargoed? Also don't forget Spencer's recent ramblings about the economy and his self-styled role to protect the free market. And last but not least the fact that Spencer exaggerated his own findings in the press release. Regarding the science. The problems with Spencer's work have been shown here at SkS and elsewhere, the problems with his methodology and his model are valid, yet he ignores them, just as he initially ignored scientists when they noted that something odd was going on with the UAH satellite data. It has now come to light that a further refutation of his dubious Remote Sensing paper will be coming out in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal next week. How much more evidence do people uncritically supporting Spencer require before they conceded that this is a) no longer about science for Spencer and that b) he is driven not by a genuine curiosity to understand the climate system but rather any opportunity to attack the IPCC and imaginary enemies and is as a consequence producing very questionable science? After his latest rants on his blog and at WUWT, I'm surprised anyone can take Spencer seriously anymore. Hopefully "skeptics" who post here note that Spencer is now censoring people who have the temerity to challenge him (ironically at the same time that he is accusing others of censorship).
75917. Camburn at 15:16 PM on 3 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       Marcus: There are not many farmers using anerobic digestion to produce power. I know of two: one in Washington state that is heavily subsidized and another in Kansas. They are both dairies. IF you are a soil scientist, then you have a lot to learn. I will put my farming practices and yields against anyones. And I will also put my increase in organic matter in my soils the past 25 years against anyones. You can not achieve an increase in organic matter by removeing organic matter. It is that plain and simple. And when you talk of the fertility of the by product of anerobic digestion system, remember you are only moving soil nutrients from one point to another. N is leachable, but P and K are a finite resource of each ton of soil. You must be a young fellow. But this is not the subject of this thread.
75918. Camburn at 15:01 PM on 3 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       Marcus: Are far as globally, where it is monitored rigorously, and the rules enforced, as in ND, the safety is very evident.
75919. Rosco at 15:00 PM on 3 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       You still have not demonstrated how the solar constant is reduced from 1368 to 342. How do you explain the temperature on the moon ?
75920. Camburn at 14:59 PM on 3 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       Marcus: I live in ND, I am talking about ND. The fellow went on and on about Fracking, and how bad it was. It has been used in ND for decades. A bit of history about oil and ND Apparantly it can be done safely. North Dakota proves this.
75921. Marcus at 14:52 PM on 3 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       btw, Camburn, you got anything beyond "anecdotal evidence" to prove the safety of the global fossil fuel industry over the last 50 years?
75922. Camburn at 14:50 PM on 3 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       muoncounter: Ah....sorry, but yes we do. Fracking has been used along with horizontal drilling in ND for over 20 years. The Bakken formation is a shale formation. Only when the price of oil went up did the drilling and production accelerate as it became much more economical to extract. https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/newsletter/NL0308/pdfs/Horizontal.pdf
75923. Marcus at 14:49 PM on 3 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       LOL Camburn, I'm a soil scientist, & can honestly say that the only one displaying ignorance here is you! There are plenty of farmers in Europe & the US who are already using anaerobic digestion to generate gas *without* harming the productivity of the soil-indeed, the other by-product of the process is so nutrient rich that it *improves* the productivity of the soil. Yet you'd rather we invest in a process which, when it goes wrong, can wreck the water table for decades to come? If that's the way you feel, then I doubt very much that you're a farmer.
75924. Eric (skeptic) at 14:14 PM on 3 September 2011
       Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
       So I have this straight, Wagner's (only) stated scientific reason for resigning is "The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (cf. [7]), a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers." Ref 7 is Trenberth et al "Relationships between tropical sea surface temperature and top‐of‐atmosphere radiation" and it relies on Forster and Gregory "The Climate Sensitivity and Its Components Diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget Data" for lambda (or Y). The main difference between SB11 and FG06 is that SB used lagged linear regression and FG used linear regression with no lag. My view is neither can be correct, the variables are not linear nor are they independent.
75925. muoncounter at 14:10 PM on 3 September 2011
       Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
       Pielke's diagnosis of politicization appears to source here: Wagner is not an expert on the subject of the Spencer and Braswell paper, so he must have relied on input from individuals who were critical of their paper. He cites one reference (in addition to weblogs) Trenberth, K.E., Fasullo, J.T., O’Dell, C., Wong, T. Relationships between tropical sea surface temperature and top-of-atmosphere radiation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2010, 37, L03702 Is Pielke suggesting that simply by citing Trenberth, Wagner must be playing politics? By Pielke's standards, Trenberth et al 2010 is properly peer-reviewed and 'robust' (apparently one of his favorite words). How can citing such a robust source be evidence of bias? Who is being political here?
       Response:

       [DB] Pielke apparently takes issue with someone resigning a position in order to call attention to a crappy paper...like Box did with the FKM paper earlier this year (prior to yet another record melt in the Arctic, yadayadayada).

       Apparently skeptics consider it rather "poor form" to hold up their inadequacies to the light of day for all the world to see.

75926. Tom Curtis at 14:04 PM on 3 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       Sphaerica @44, I get that he won't get it. But perhaps some reader will not be familiar with spherical geometry, and will now see for themselves that Rosco is spouting complete and utter tripe.
75927. DSL at 14:04 PM on 3 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       Rosco: "PS - I am not arguing from what seems to be right to me." Rosco: "I get the geometry I just think it isn't relevant for a dynamic system." Eh?
75928. muoncounter at 14:01 PM on 3 September 2011
       Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
       Ken#26: "the green-energy companies backed by the current government are going broke and walking away with our tax money." Please provide some substantiation. Where I live, the green energy is wind - and its keeping my lights on and AC running while thermal plants can't handle the heat. And it was the prior government that negotiated sweetheart deals featuring ridiculously low royalties for wind energy. While you are at it, include the ongoing subsidies to the US oil industry (and the ongoing tax breaks to the top income brackets). The current government has kept those alive. "People getting wealthy with government subsidies"? That must also include the beneficiaries of earmarks: Of the top ten Senators requesting the highest amount of $ in solo earmarks 6 are Republicans.
75929. Bob Lacatena at 14:00 PM on 3 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       43, Tom Curtis, You're wasting your breath. Look at his comment here, where he says:

       Why is it valid to reduce solar insolation by a factor of 4 to calculate the "effective blackbody temperature" of a planet - especially Venus with it 200 odd earth day long day ? I get the geometry I just think it isn't relevant for a dynamic system.

       It's really hopeless, and pointless.
75930. DSL at 14:00 PM on 3 September 2011
       Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
       What does Pielke mean by "politicized"? All science is politicized from the get-go because funding must be provided--in all sectors. Decisions about the worth of a study must be made. Those decisions are essentially political. I can only assume that Pielke means that Wagner only further brings climate science into the maw of mass media and public opinion, which is where it should be. People should be thinking about it. What the science indicates is serious trouble, and an informed public is never a bad thing. Pielke, then, laments the possibility of more people engaging the situation, for surely he couldn't be lamenting the idea that more idiots get a crack at the situation, not when he's let garbage slide right by him without correction or comment on various blogs and in association with the NIPCC. And he implicitly defends Spencer's work (surely he's read it and the criticisms). I suspect Wagner got an early look at Dessler's upcoming destruction of Spencer and realized that Spencer wasn't going to admit to the errors, much less work through them.
75931. muoncounter at 13:51 PM on 3 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       Camburn, "a pretty good track record. 20 years of fracking..nothing to write home about." Once again, the frac jobs of 20 years ago (or even 10 years ago) do not compare to the frac jobs of today. When I left the oil business in 2002, shale gas was a drilling hazard; 5 years later it was the hot play. So you don't have a 20 year track record with this technology.
75932. Ken at 13:37 PM on 3 September 2011
       Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
       Rob Painting, The Wright Brothers were competing with Langley for one who launched his biplane off a house boat in the Potomac River. It crashed because he has insufficient power. Man has to change the environment to survive. We are the only animal who has to do that. If it bothers you that people are getting wealthy with government subsidies, we are on the same page, because the green-energy companies backed by the current government are going broke and walking away with our tax money. Free-enterprise is not a zero-sum game. If you have data that shows that there is a limit to the products and services that can be offered to others for a fair price, please let me know the reference. I am an out of work aeronautical engineer, software engineer, university instructor and professional grandfather. I am also an amateur astronomer, so I just designed and had manufactured a one-of-a-kind telescope mount prototype. A company is now producing the first production model, which I will test and approve the final production design. No government grants or subsidies and no guarantee of success. Just my idea, my time doing the design and drawings, a few hundred dollars for the prototype, and an independent spirit. If you do not get the picture, I do not know what to say. If just a few percent of the energy being spent on this site were being spent on productive endeavors, we would not need this site. As things are, these dialogs should continue. Honest dialog is good for the soul.
       Response:

       [DB] "If just a few percent of the energy being spent on this site were being spent on productive endeavors, we would not need this site."

       To whom are you referring?

       (I like to be sure I'm being insulted before reacting...'cause it sure seems like an insult)

75933. Camburn at 13:33 PM on 3 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       Marcus: What interest? I live in the Eastern part of the state and don't have any oil under me. We are a lightly populated state. I have many friends in the western part of the state. We all have the same concerns.....a clean environment, responsable extraction. We have been producing oil for well over 50 years here. We have not had one major environmental problem. Fracking has been in use for over 20 years since the development of horizontal drilling. Topic 2: collect and anaerobically digest organic waste. Marcus: Do you know the environmental cost of doing this??????? I am a farmer. When you think that taking away the organic matter from my soil is a good thing.....then this only shows how little you know about soils. I work to INCREASE the organic matter in my soils, not remove it. I have been offered money to sell my straw....sure...short term gain...long term producitity loss on a large scale. This is NOT a practicle solution at all. The environmental consequences are absolutely horrendous. 50 years.....nothing to write home about. I call that a pretty good track record. 20 years of fracking..nothing to write home about. That shows that we are monitoring the extraction pretty well don't you think?
75934. muoncounter at 13:26 PM on 3 September 2011
       Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
       Ken#24 "our lifespan has increased 50% in the last 100 years. " Yes. How much of that was due to food safety standards, the National Institutes of Health, OSHA and (gasp) the EPA? Or due to regulating the railroads, mine safety, the FAA and even the National Weather Service? Don't believe regulation has value? From Engineering Ethics: Considering the much larger number of people engaged in modern industry today compared to a hundred years ago, it is likely that the accident and fatality rates in modern industry are much lower than comparable rates in the 1880s. What I would like to see are examples of a private-sector project that solved a problem on a massive scale - like the ones that could tackle climate-related problems. This question came up on the Challenge to the right thread; no takers yet.
75935. muoncounter at 13:15 PM on 3 September 2011
       Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
       Pielke: "As it is, Wagner has further politicized climate science." Oh, how quickly he forgets. Spencer is the one who has proclaimed he is not a scientist, but a 'legislator.'
75936. Marcus at 13:10 PM on 3 September 2011
       Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
       "Interesting" Camburn? Predictable-yes, boring-yes....but not "Interesting".
75937. Camburn at 13:05 PM on 3 September 2011
       Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
       Roger Pielke Sr. has an interesting take on Wagner's reisnation: Roger Pielke Sr take
75938. Marcus at 13:04 PM on 3 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       Also, Camburn, I'm extremely curious about what interest you have in defending the Frakking industry. Anything you want to share with the audience?
75939. Ken at 13:03 PM on 3 September 2011
       Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
       muoncounter, The government is a perfectly valid customer for any product. The government did not pay Edison with tax payers money to develop the product. Do you see the difference? It is called free-enterprise, not government subsidy. The examples of free-enterprise are all around you, just take a (-snip-) look around. Why don't you do the calculations of what our environment would be like if every home was heated and had to cook on wood or coal fires. Then compare this with the central production of the power we need to produce the efficient power we have today. The pollutants and use of resources would be enormous to support our current population. Not to mention that our lifespan has increased 50% in the last 100 years.
       Response:

       [DB] Inflammatory snipped.

75940. Marcus at 13:03 PM on 3 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       "Maybe the big ones aren't that great, but the small ones that are in the Bakken do fine." Camburn, you are aware that most aquifers in a region are joined together? Pollute one part of the aquifer & you're polluting the *entire* aquifer. Some of us happen to believe that the *risk* of a catastrophic accident are too great for the supposed "rewards", especially when a host of much safer & cleaner alternatives are already available. After all, why risk ground-water contamination to extract gas, when you can encourage local farming communities to collect & anaerobically digest organic waste to generate both gas *and* nitrogen rich fertilizer?
75941. Marcus at 12:59 PM on 3 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       Wow, you really do have to love the lengths that people like Camburn will go to in order to defend an industry (oil & coal) with an extremely sketchy history in the area of environmental protection. Yes there are always risks in life, but why do we have to add even greater risks simply so that a multinational corporation can boost its profit margin? Also, how do you know that its been 100% successful? Minor leaks/contamination events often take many years for their ill effects to be felt.
75942. Tom Curtis at 12:49 PM on 3 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       Rosco @39:

       "What you need to demonstrate is why this reduction is valid when at any point in time no matter what the undeniable truth is that at TOA Earth the solar constant is 1368 W/sq m and at any time the insolation on the Earth's surface is the radiation normal to the atmosphere minus the albedo and whatever is absorbed by the atmosphere. All climate scientists agree with the value of the solar constant as 1368 W/sq m. If the earth only receives 240 W /sq m whare did the other 1128 W/sq m go ? "

       Basic Education: Area of a circle = pi r^2 Area of a sphere = 4 pi r^2 Ratio of the area of a sphere to the area of a circle of identical radius = 4 Total energy flux from sunlight intercepted by the Earth = 1368 W/m^2 * pi R_E^2, where R_E is the radius of the Earth. Total area energy flux is distributed over = 4 * pi R_E^2, where R_E is the radius of the Earth. Therefore, average energy flux of sunlight intercepted per square meter of the Earh's surface equals 1368/4 = 342 W/m^2. And the average energy flux of sunlight intercepted after albedo on the Earth's surface equals 342 * 0.7 = 239.4 W/m^2. What is the value of an education if you just assume any time that you disagree with a climate scientist that the PhD heavily published climate scientists have simply forgotten basic facts of geometry, and not one of the thousands of climate scientists world wide have managed to notice? Because that is what you have done. Your automatic assumption that because you have a bachelors degree in engineering, the PhDs in physics must have got it wrong would be hilariously funny if it where not so sad, and the issue serious.
75943. scaddenp at 12:46 PM on 3 September 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       As a further guide to thinking about the borehole data. Consider a simple 1D problem. Furnace with constant heat production inside. 2 layers of bricks surround it. Drill hole through brick and measure the temperature gradient. Given the gradient and the thermal conductivity, calculate the heat flux. Want to try that for borehole data? Remove one layer of brick instantaneously. Does the temperature of the surface for the remaining stay constant now?
75944. Camburn at 12:44 PM on 3 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       muoncounter: Maybe the big ones aren't that great, but the small ones that are in the Bakken do fine. At this time, there have been no fracing fluids detected in any of the test wells throughout the state. In life, there are always risks. They are mitigated to the best of our abilities.
75945. muoncounter at 12:31 PM on 3 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       Camburn, It's the oil patch. Accidents happen; all the 'we are doing just fine policing this ourselves' in the world will not prevent them. The best you can do is be ready to clean it up - it's just that oil companies aren't all that great at doing that. Second frac spill Two spills during oil well fracture treatments in four months — the last one just Saturday — has the state’s chief oil regulator poised to bear down to prevent more incidents as drilling intensifies in the oil patch. Concerns about offgasing frac fluid The Whiting Petroleum Corp. well was shut down nearly two weeks ago after a valve near the wellhead failed and caused oil, natural gas and water to spill into a lined pit, the Associated Press reported Nov. 22. State health officials said all the liquid was contained and there was no environmental damage.
75946. Tom Curtis at 12:30 PM on 3 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       Rosco @39:

       "Are you denying it was gravity which initiated all the fusion reactions in the stars through increasing pressure resulting in increasing temperatures which eventually reach the point where fusion reactions can take place ?"

       The gravitational force is not consumed by the production of energy in stars. Therefore, regardless of the fact that it is essential for establishing the conditions of fusion, it is not the source of the energy. The energy in fact comes from the conversion of mass to energy by fusion in that the daughter elements in fusion are very slightly lighter than the parent particles.

       "The core of Earth is hot due to gravity which is ultimately responsible for vulcanism and our magnetic field."

       The Earth was heated to a molten state by impacts early in its history, but the heat from those impacts escaped to space in approximately 10 million years of the earths 4,500 million year history. It remains molten because of the energy released by fission of radioactive isotopes (primarily Uranium) in the core, along with a small amount of energy from tidal friction. Again in fission, the combined mass of the daughter isotopes (and particles) is slightly less than that of the parent isotopes, the difference being released as energy. Gravitation is completely irrelevant to this process. These may seem like minor points to you, but what they show to me an others on this site is a casual disregard for accuracy which permeates your posts and turn them into scientific garbage. As others have done, I cannot recommend highly enough that you sit down and read before continuing to post this nonsense online.
75947. Camburn at 12:19 PM on 3 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       muoncounter: Note that in both of these incidents, the water was contained, and the actual volume was very small. My water truck that I use for hauling water to my sprayer holds more water than was spilled inside the containment area. Both of these were well head blowouts, which is not the same as a caseing failure. To my knowledge, we have had no casing failures so far. There are approx 25 billion barrels of recoverable oil in this field, and the natural gas is also huge. Sheer numbers tell one that an accident or casing failure is bound to occur. The containment failure was dealt with the intent to make sure that the companies drilling, would understand that the financial costs would take away all the profit from that well. So...in simple terms.....don't spill or you will pay dearly.
75948. Rosco at 12:19 PM on 3 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       I've read the response. I've quoted the IPCC. I've made valid calculations using Stefan-Boltzman to arrive at maximum temperatures for different radiation levels and I have provided 2 example that demonstrate actual recorded temperatures correlate almost exactly with what was calculated. I am simply proposing something to think about. I am certainly not uneducated - I achieved honours in nearly every subject I undertook in my 2 degrees.
75949. Camburn at 12:09 PM on 3 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       Ammend: The fine the company paid was several hundred thousand dollars. This was done to insure that this did NOT happen again. This has been the first and only spill so far in our states history.
75950. Camburn at 12:07 PM on 3 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       Rob@8: No, the contaminated water is put in a containment basin. There are plans to put up a water treatment plant to refine that water. Most of the water is in the shale deposits tho. The contaminated water is a fraction of the total water used. We have several important aquifers in ND. The state in the early 90's developed a grid system to sample water throughout the state. The system was not in response to the fracing, but to the high levels of heavy metals that are naturally in the water. During times of drought, the heavy levels go up. Arsinic is a valid concern, as well as mollybedium, lead, etc. These are all natural pollutants. We are a very energy rich state, but at the same time we are also a very conservative state. We want to conserve the environment as Ag is still the principle industry and 99% of farmers are very conscious of any type of environmental damage. We have large livestock operations that require good water. There were a few deaths from arsinic poisoning in the 80's, (A time of a 3 year drought), and thus the test wells were developed. There was one temporary pit that had an overflow this spring because of overland flooding. The fine that the company paid was several thousand dollars, and they had to clean up the contaminated area. We have not had a well case breach at this time that is detectable in any of the ground water samples. Our state PSC is very conscious of the demands of the public that oil/gas extraction MUST be safe for all involved. All I can say is we live here. We breath the air, drink the water. It is our lifeblood. We are used to pristine water/air and will settle, nor accept anything less. Our coal fired power plants are owned by a co-op, and being owners of said co-op, the stockholders encourage and demand continued clear smokestacks etc. We do not need the Fed government to tell us what is good or bad. We are doing just fine policing this ourselves. My only wish is that other countries had the same resolve to do so.

Prev  1511  1512  1513  1514  1515  1516  1517  1518  1519  1520  1521  1522  1523  1524  1525  1526  Next