Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed
On 27 February 2010 16:49, Tony Wright ton...@tpg.com.au wrote: And I suppose Warwick Hughes has it all right? I don't know. I didn't really opine on Warwick Hughes. The only stuff I posted about him was written by Phil Jones of CRU. [ ... Rant about Warwick deleted ... ] So if you don’t believe any scientist can be credible, who do you believe in? I did not say I don't believe any scientist can be credible. What I DID say is that people who are dismissing the climategate stuff and AR4 nonesense out of hand should stop - breathe - and read the material. Draw your own conclusions on the basis of having read it. It is clear from the angry e-mails I'm getting on this thread is that my merely questioning the content of AR4 (esp WG2) as well as the motivations of the people outed in the CRU e-mail leaks/hacks is enough to tick people off in a major way. Again, I'm merely suggesting you look at the material. As for Warwick Hughes being a nutter or whatever - that may be the case but it does not at all detract from the fact Phil Jones said he didn't want to send him data because Hughes 'would just try and find something wrong with it'. That statement is utterly unscientific. If the 'debate is over' and there is 'scientific consensus' from the 95% of scientists as you suggest (i.e. the evidence must be irrefutable) then why not just give him the source and data? If he does find something wrong with it - that is the scientific method is supposed to work. If he makes a stink to ask for it can comes up with nothing then he looks like a fool. Only the ones with a neo-conservative agenda? Only ones that agree with your point of view? Groan. No. However I do think it is healthy and logical to question the scientists who write stuff like the material in the CRU hack/leak. They cannot, on one hand, say that The debate is over to anyone with an opposing viewpoint, and at the same time write crap like this: ; ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!! ; yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904] valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$ 2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!' ; yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey) That is, the 5 in 100 scientists that don’t believe in climate change? Perhaps American Spectator, a newspaper considered right-wing in a country that we consider further to the right, funded by Richard Scaife, the principal air to the Mellon Banking, Oil and Aluminium fortune? There was a time very recently when 100% of doctors and researchers thought that stomach ulcers were caused by stress and lifestyle choices. It took a lone 'idiot' to drink a vile of bacteria in front of a conference to prove simple anti-biotics was an effective cure for a whole range of issues. Just because most people believe something does not automatically make it right. A modicum of healthy skepticism is not unwarranted especially given the recent revelations. Would you rather fly blind without the scientists to warn you of what might be coming up if we don’t be careful? I'd rather people would engage their brains and look at information from a variety of sources and keep a balanced view of what is going on - and especially stop using labels like 'denialist' and phrases like 'the debate is over' (there never really was one). The fact of the matter is that some of the stuff in AR4 was SO embarrassing that it would result in staff being sacked in any normal organisation. Anyone who says that the stuff in the CRU archives is 'quoted out of context' has not read any of the material. When you add context back in - some of it gets far worse. What did Pachauri say about people who questioned the IPCC AR4 glacier figures? He said that they believed in voodoo science. It turns out - that were correct. David. -- David Connors (da...@codify.com) Software Engineer Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417 189 363 V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact
Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed
Ian, I tried to stay out of this OT thread but I could not resist it once the question of belief arose. On 28 February 2010 15:54, Ian Thomas il.tho...@iinet.net.au wrote: Noonie - You make what I believe are good points – and I agree with them in part (the bit about the Carboniferous is a bit wide of the mark, but I get your general thrust). I've encountered these graphs, and general sentiments, on several sites. Not knowing who's-who in the xGW debate I took it on face value. http://biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html It appears that this group is skeptical of current trends and therefore could be accused of having an agenda :-P There’s a problem with the non-scientist general public in that they tend to believe that consensus = truth (consensus: the supposed 3,000 scientists who supposedly wrote the IPCC top-level reports). Or is it the media that insists on pushing that simplistic line? Yes the 10,000,000 blowflies theory of diet ;-) Of course, progress in science depends absolutely on dissent – but not on irrationality and emotionalism or consensus to “prove a point”. Precisely my point. Without vigorous debate amongst those who know the rest of us are just flapping our gums. I do get very cross with those who make claims about their data but who refuse to share that data so that the claims may be verified (or not). I watched the second of a series of 2 programs on SBS yesterday, called “Absolute Zero” (ie, theoretical 0o Kelvin, and pursuit of very low temperatures in the laboratory). While unrelated to GW/climate change debates, the program illustrated well the competitiveness and even the clash of personalities, etc of leading scientists of 300 years ago to the present – ie, they’re generally human - and also the cooperative and generous spirit of many. The practical side-effects of these endeavours are huge, in our current technological age – including quantum computing. Scientific endeavour depends on dissent and pursuit of facts (and results) to back up theories or hypotheses. I over-educated in geology, chemistry and physics which has given me an appreciation of that aspect of science and the scientific method. Geology is an interesting discipline, in that it encourages a lot of vague arm-waving and hypothesizing – because of the vastness of the time-scales involved, and some difficulty in finding unambiguous evidence to support or refute. In itself, that’s a useful experience and vantage-point to critique the global warming / climate change fiasco as it’s playing out. I imagine the current state of global climate science to be similar to the early days of modern physics. I just hope that there's no equivalent of quantum mechanics in the climate sciences. If there is then the rest of use will never understand it. Unfortunately, the intent of my post a week ago has been lost in extraneous flak. I thought the email would survive until Monday night; it’s occupied too much bandwidth. I have actually enjoyed reading this thread. But I'm easily amused. -- noonie -- Ian Thomas Victoria Park, Western Australia -- *From:* ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com [mailto: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] *On Behalf Of *noonie *Sent:* Sunday, 28 February 2010 7:03 AM *To:* ausDotNet *Subject:* Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed Greetings, On 27 February 2010 17:49, Tony Wright ton...@tpg.com.au wrote: snip So if you don’t believe any scientist can be credible, who do you believe in? Only the ones with a neo-conservative agenda? Only ones that agree with your point of view? That is, the 5 in 100 scientists that don’t believe in climate change? Perhaps American Spectator, a newspaper considered right-wing in a country that we consider further to the right, funded by Richard Scaife, the principal air to the Mellon Banking, Oil and Aluminium fortune? But this is how the majority of the general public choose the side they are going to agree with. It's human nature. Science is about facts and measurements and exposing your theories, along with your data and methodology, to critical peer review, and taking your lumps and revising your theory until you have a strong proposition that is acceptably close to the truth. You are not supposed to believe _in_ a scientist. That stinks of cultism. You are supposed to be convinced by the quality of his/her research. It should not be about personality and charisma. Copernicus recanted, Isaac Newton was a prat and Thomas Edison seldom washed. I'm afraid I don't believe any of the xGW crowd, from either side. I do wonder why it is such an issue at the moment. I do, however, believe the following:- 1. Global warming (and cooling) is inevitable. It has happened before. Get used to it. 2. Pouring all the carbon dioxide, that was laid down
Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed
Greetings, On 27 February 2010 17:49, Tony Wright ton...@tpg.com.au wrote: snip So if you don’t believe any scientist can be credible, who do you believe in? Only the ones with a neo-conservative agenda? Only ones that agree with your point of view? That is, the 5 in 100 scientists that don’t believe in climate change? Perhaps American Spectator, a newspaper considered right-wing in a country that we consider further to the right, funded by Richard Scaife, the principal air to the Mellon Banking, Oil and Aluminium fortune? But this is how the majority of the general public choose the side they are going to agree with. It's human nature. Science is about facts and measurements and exposing your theories, along with your data and methodology, to critical peer review, and taking your lumps and revising your theory until you have a strong proposition that is acceptably close to the truth. You are not supposed to believe _in_ a scientist. That stinks of cultism. You are supposed to be convinced by the quality of his/her research. It should not be about personality and charisma. Copernicus recanted, Isaac Newton was a prat and Thomas Edison seldom washed. I'm afraid I don't believe any of the xGW crowd, from either side. I do wonder why it is such an issue at the moment. I do, however, believe the following:- 1. Global warming (and cooling) is inevitable. It has happened before. Get used to it. 2. Pouring all the carbon dioxide, that was laid down in the Carboniferous period, back into the atmosphere is probably not a good idea. (Although I have red that global temperatures during this period were very, very low in spite of the high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide). 3. Greenland was inhabited and farmed before, and probably will be again. 4. The Northwest passage was safe for shipping before, and probably will be again. -- noonie Would you rather fly blind without the scientists to warn you of what might be coming up if we don’t be careful? T. *From:* ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com [mailto: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] *On Behalf Of *David Connors *Sent:* Saturday, 27 February 2010 3:04 PM *To:* ausDotNet *Subject:* Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed On 27 February 2010 11:54, Ian Thomas il.tho...@iinet.net.au wrote: I just hate the inflammatory wording in that explanation of the Melbourne Water graph – “*What does this graph show?* Annual inflows into Melbourne's 4 major reservoirs since 1913. While ups and downs are a constant feature, the average has dropped rapidly by almost 40% in the past 12 years. This included a devastating drop in 2006, which the CSIRO had forecast could occur under a 'severe' climate change scenario in 2050.” …included a devastating drop in 2006, which the CSIRO had forecast could occur under a 'severe' climate change scenario in 2050. So what? Is that a proof that climate change is occurring more rapidly than CSIRO modelling predicted? As an alarmist flag to the water-consuming public that we should conserve and limit unnecessary use of water, it may be justified, but in terms of truth or factual information it really gets up my nose. I realize that some clerk or other gonk in Melbourne Water phrased the explanation (not the CSIRO), but it’s typical of inflammatory exaggerated accounts that are intended to promote an agenda. The same clerk or gonk fortuitously chose a starting date of 1913, neatly excising the federation drought (by exactly a decade) from the start of that in-flow graph - as well as any inflow records that led up to the Murray River being bone dry in 1914. I'm probably cherry picking facts though.
RE: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed
Noonie - You make what I believe are good points - and I agree with them in part (the bit about the Carboniferous is a bit wide of the mark, but I get your general thrust). There's a problem with the non-scientist general public in that they tend to believe that consensus = truth (consensus: the supposed 3,000 scientists who supposedly wrote the IPCC top-level reports). Or is it the media that insists on pushing that simplistic line? Of course, progress in science depends absolutely on dissent - but not on irrationality and emotionalism or consensus to prove a point. I watched the second of a series of 2 programs on SBS yesterday, called Absolute Zero (ie, theoretical 0o Kelvin, and pursuit of very low temperatures in the laboratory). While unrelated to GW/climate change debates, the program illustrated well the competitiveness and even the clash of personalities, etc of leading scientists of 300 years ago to the present - ie, they're generally human - and also the cooperative and generous spirit of many. The practical side-effects of these endeavours are huge, in our current technological age - including quantum computing. Scientific endeavour depends on dissent and pursuit of facts (and results) to back up theories or hypotheses. I over-educated in geology, chemistry and physics which has given me an appreciation of that aspect of science and the scientific method. Geology is an interesting discipline, in that it encourages a lot of vague arm-waving and hypothesizing - because of the vastness of the time-scales involved, and some difficulty in finding unambiguous evidence to support or refute. In itself, that's a useful experience and vantage-point to critique the global warming / climate change fiasco as it's playing out. Unfortunately, the intent of my post a week ago has been lost in extraneous flak. I thought the email would survive until Monday night; it's occupied too much bandwidth. _ Ian Thomas Victoria Park, Western Australia _ From: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com [mailto:ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] On Behalf Of noonie Sent: Sunday, 28 February 2010 7:03 AM To: ausDotNet Subject: Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed Greetings, On 27 February 2010 17:49, Tony Wright ton...@tpg.com.au wrote: snip So if you don't believe any scientist can be credible, who do you believe in? Only the ones with a neo-conservative agenda? Only ones that agree with your point of view? That is, the 5 in 100 scientists that don't believe in climate change? Perhaps American Spectator, a newspaper considered right-wing in a country that we consider further to the right, funded by Richard Scaife, the principal air to the Mellon Banking, Oil and Aluminium fortune? But this is how the majority of the general public choose the side they are going to agree with. It's human nature. Science is about facts and measurements and exposing your theories, along with your data and methodology, to critical peer review, and taking your lumps and revising your theory until you have a strong proposition that is acceptably close to the truth. You are not supposed to believe _in_ a scientist. That stinks of cultism. You are supposed to be convinced by the quality of his/her research. It should not be about personality and charisma. Copernicus recanted, Isaac Newton was a prat and Thomas Edison seldom washed. I'm afraid I don't believe any of the xGW crowd, from either side. I do wonder why it is such an issue at the moment. I do, however, believe the following:- 1. Global warming (and cooling) is inevitable. It has happened before. Get used to it. 2. Pouring all the carbon dioxide, that was laid down in the Carboniferous period, back into the atmosphere is probably not a good idea. (Although I have red that global temperatures during this period were very, very low in spite of the high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide). 3. Greenland was inhabited and farmed before, and probably will be again. 4. The Northwest passage was safe for shipping before, and probably will be again. -- noonie Would you rather fly blind without the scientists to warn you of what might be coming up if we don't be careful? T. From: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com [mailto:ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] On Behalf Of David Connors Sent: Saturday, 27 February 2010 3:04 PM To: ausDotNet Subject: Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed On 27 February 2010 11:54, Ian Thomas il.tho...@iinet.net.au wrote: I just hate the inflammatory wording in that explanation of the Melbourne Water graph - What does this graph show? Annual inflows into Melbourne's 4 major reservoirs since 1913. While ups and downs are a constant feature, the average has dropped rapidly by almost 40% in the past 12 years. This included a devastating drop in 2006, which the CSIRO had forecast could occur under a 'severe
RE: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed
I just hate the inflammatory wording in that explanation of the Melbourne Water graph - What does this graph show? Annual inflows into Melbourne's 4 major reservoirs since 1913. While ups and downs are a constant feature, the average has dropped rapidly by almost 40% in the past 12 years. This included a devastating drop in 2006, which the CSIRO had forecast could occur under a 'severe' climate change scenario in 2050. .included a devastating drop in 2006, which the CSIRO had forecast could occur under a 'severe' climate change scenario in 2050. So what? Is that a proof that climate change is occurring more rapidly than CSIRO modelling predicted? As an alarmist flag to the water-consuming public that we should conserve and limit unnecessary use of water, it may be justified, but in terms of truth or factual information it really gets up my nose. I realize that some clerk or other gonk in Melbourne Water phrased the explanation (not the CSIRO), but it's typical of inflammatory exaggerated accounts that are intended to promote an agenda. _ Ian Thomas Victoria Park, Western Australia _ From: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com [mailto:ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] On Behalf Of Tony Wright Sent: Saturday, 27 February 2010 9:02 AM To: 'ausDotNet' Subject: RE: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed Well that's the hope. The hope is that that the ecosystem can somehow rebalance itself in spite of the extra greenhouse gases injected into the system. On the other side of this is the fear that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is now so great that the carbon sinks can't accommodate the amount that is produced. We always have hope. Weighing up the probabilities, with all the events that are occurring worldwide, I'd be inclined to err on the side of caution and suggest that we need to do something to ensure that conditions don't become worse. I note that Melbourne Water's storages are dropping again. They show the graph of water flows into the main supplies. There's a note below that graph that states: What does this graph show? Annual inflows into Melbourne's 4 major reservoirs since 1913. While ups and downs are a constant feature, the average has dropped rapidly by almost 40% in the past 12 years. This included a devastating drop in 2006, which the CSIRO had forecast could occur under a 'severe' climate change scenario in 2050. http://www.melbournewater.com.au/content/water_storages/water_report/water_r eport.asp From: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com [mailto:ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] On Behalf Of mike smith Sent: Friday, 26 February 2010 11:31 AM To: ausDotNet Subject: Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed On 25 February 2010 20:07, Tony Wright ton...@tpg.com.au wrote: Meanwhile: I had a look at David Connors sent link: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice_south.php and it should be pointed out that this refers to sea ice and whether that has an impact on increasing sea levels. I looked another link on this site: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice.php which refers to sea ice in the northern hemisphere, which has been melting at a faster rate than down south. This is all consistent with what the Australian Antarctic Division have said. Again from the NASA site supplied: Since 1978, satellites have monitored sea ice growth and retreat, and they have detected an overall decline in Arctic sea ice. The rate of decline steepened after the turn of the twenty-first century. In September 2002, the summer minimum ice extent was the lowest it had been since 1979. Although the September 2002 low was only slightly below previous lows (from the 1990s), it was the beginning of a series of record or near-record lows in the Arctic. This series of record lows, combined with poor wintertime recoveries starting in the winter of 2004-2005, marked a sharpening in the rate of decline in Arctic sea ice. Sea ice did not return to anything approaching the long-term average (1979-2000) after 2002. But sea ice actually doesn't have anywhere near as much of an impact as land-based ice does on sea level. It is analogous to ice cubes floating in a glass. When sea ice melts, it doesn't increase the volume (much). However, if land ice melts, and the water flows into the sea, the sea level does rise. However, what it does do is decrease our overall albedo. Whether ice is land or sea, its reflectance is the same. -- Meski Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure, you'll get it, but it's going to be rough - Adam Hills
Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed
On 27 February 2010 11:54, Ian Thomas il.tho...@iinet.net.au wrote: I just hate the inflammatory wording in that explanation of the Melbourne Water graph – “*What does this graph show?* Annual inflows into Melbourne's 4 major reservoirs since 1913. While ups and downs are a constant feature, the average has dropped rapidly by almost 40% in the past 12 years. This included a devastating drop in 2006, which the CSIRO had forecast could occur under a 'severe' climate change scenario in 2050.” …included a devastating drop in 2006, which the CSIRO had forecast could occur under a 'severe' climate change scenario in 2050. So what? Is that a proof that climate change is occurring more rapidly than CSIRO modelling predicted? As an alarmist flag to the water-consuming public that we should conserve and limit unnecessary use of water, it may be justified, but in terms of truth or factual information it really gets up my nose. I realize that some clerk or other gonk in Melbourne Water phrased the explanation (not the CSIRO), but it’s typical of inflammatory exaggerated accounts that are intended to promote an agenda. The same clerk or gonk fortuitously chose a starting date of 1913, neatly excising the federation drought (by exactly a decade) from the start of that in-flow graph - as well as any inflow records that led up to the Murray River being bone dry in 1914. I'm probably cherry picking facts though. -- David Connors (da...@codify.com) Software Engineer Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417 189 363 V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact
RE: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed
And I suppose Warwick Hughes has it all right? If anyone has an agenda here with a foregone conclusion it’s got to be him. Since well before 2005, when he requested the IPCC data, he was bagging anything remotely green. No wonder they didn’t want to give anything to him, they knew his agenda was to attack anything they’d produced. I don’t blame them, I’d give people with an agenda to attack me nothing. There’s no positive articles on Warwick Hughes site, all negative about other people’s scientific work, all one sided, all anti anything green and pro coal and pro oil. There might be ten peer reviewed articles on a topic and he will show the one that supports his point of view. Does it make either one of them right? No it doesn’t. But I am ready to support the arguments of the 10 other articles over the one he picked out. I am not even pro-green myself, nor am I anti-green. I am not a supporter of any political party. I’m not a fan of Liberal or Labor or Green. But I do see when there’s no balance. Warwick Hughes is one of those, with links off his site to sites such as antigreen.blogspot.com. So if you don’t believe any scientist can be credible, who do you believe in? Only the ones with a neo-conservative agenda? Only ones that agree with your point of view? That is, the 5 in 100 scientists that don’t believe in climate change? Perhaps American Spectator, a newspaper considered right-wing in a country that we consider further to the right, funded by Richard Scaife, the principal air to the Mellon Banking, Oil and Aluminium fortune? Would you rather fly blind without the scientists to warn you of what might be coming up if we don’t be careful? T. From: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com [mailto:ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] On Behalf Of David Connors Sent: Saturday, 27 February 2010 3:04 PM To: ausDotNet Subject: Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed On 27 February 2010 11:54, Ian Thomas il.tho...@iinet.net.au wrote: I just hate the inflammatory wording in that explanation of the Melbourne Water graph – “What does this graph show? Annual inflows into Melbourne's 4 major reservoirs since 1913. While ups and downs are a constant feature, the average has dropped rapidly by almost 40% in the past 12 years. This included a devastating drop in 2006, which the CSIRO had forecast could occur under a 'severe' climate change scenario in 2050.” …included a devastating drop in 2006, which the CSIRO had forecast could occur under a 'severe' climate change scenario in 2050. So what? Is that a proof that climate change is occurring more rapidly than CSIRO modelling predicted? As an alarmist flag to the water-consuming public that we should conserve and limit unnecessary use of water, it may be justified, but in terms of truth or factual information it really gets up my nose. I realize that some clerk or other gonk in Melbourne Water phrased the explanation (not the CSIRO), but it’s typical of inflammatory exaggerated accounts that are intended to promote an agenda. The same clerk or gonk fortuitously chose a starting date of 1913, neatly excising the federation drought (by exactly a decade) from the start of that in-flow graph - as well as any inflow records that led up to the Murray River being bone dry in 1914. I'm probably cherry picking facts though. -- David Connors (da...@codify.com) Software Engineer Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417 189 363 V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact
Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed
Hi Tony, I'm not intent on winning any argument and I think you really fundamentally misunderstand my position. I have only suggested that people should accept a multitude of viewpoints and not accept something being given to them them prima facie. Current pro-AGW research is far from beyond reproach (in my view) - and I think that any arguments that are along the lines of 'accept scientists because that have proofs and facts' are invalid based on the deportment of the climate research community. One thing I have noticed in this thread is that I have stated that I'm willing to look at both sides of the argument and have been for some time (for the record, I started out at this stuff as a worried person (at the birth of my first son)) and I've ended up being pushed more to the skeptic camp than the pro camp - mostly by pro-agw material I have mentioned elsewhere (ESPECIALLY having pretty tame comments censored on rc). Your reply ends in: So tell me, seeing as it is that important that you win an argument - what argument did you win? In my experience, this is pretty common in talking about AGW. Someone starts a discussion (and my question to you was really as above - I really did not know) but sooner or later is descends into some sort of narky argument. It is probably more polite to fart at a party than even hint that you might have an open mind to the skeptical side of the AGW debate. As you say I think you miss the point. It's not about whether or not we should have a debate about it. And I think it is. I don't think we will ever agree on that point. More below: On 25 February 2010 19:07, Tony Wright ton...@tpg.com.au wrote: [ Arctic sea ice, antarctic sea ice, Archimede's principle, etc deleted to keep the thread under control length wise ] I don't disagree with much of what you have written. Also, I don't dispute that the Earth has been and is generally warming for a period of at least a few hundred years. I accept your point about sea ice via land ice and to be honest, without further research I don't have an opinion on antarctic land ice *mass*. I do have an opinion that the antarctic warming research done by Steig et al is probably garbage based on station siting issues and some other errors in his most recent (I think most recent) paper on the topic. My understanding is that much of the temperature inferencing across West and East antarctica was done via a lot of fairly dubious interpolation - at least in the material I have read over the past year or so since it was released. Now, hopefully not being alarmist, the Australian Antarctic Division are predicting a maximum rise of 2 metres, and a probable rise of 0.8 metres over the next 100 years. It will be interesting to see when this is reflected in real-estate prices. ;) The reason why Antarctica is not melting as fast as they first thought was due to the hole in the Ozone layer. They are worried that when the Ozone layer finally repairs itself, however, the temperature could rise dramatically, and they may need to revise these figures (I note that no one argued that there's no Ozone hole.) Link: http://www.aad.gov.au/MediaLibrary/asset/MediaItems/ml_399765016087963_PA04_ Ice%20Sheets_FIN_MEDIA_090610.pdfhttp://www.aad.gov.au/MediaLibrary/asset/MediaItems/ml_399765016087963_PA04_Ice%20Sheets_FIN_MEDIA_090610.pdf You've lost me at the when the ozone layer finally repairs itself. 1. What does a normal ozone layer look like and how would we know? 2. The PDF at the link you send me does not contain the words ozone or hole. 3. What did the ozone hole look like, for example, during the MWP? Again, I am not asking a leading question ... but i'd venture we have f'all data since before satellite obs. I note that no one argued that there's no Ozone hole.: I have never met anyone dispute the existence of it either - but I have met a lot of people who dispute the cause or historical precedence. We do have a weather problem, whether you like it or not. Fair enough ... you have a foregone conclusion and there is probably no way we will see each other's point of view. Again, you need to understand that I do not dispute that climate changes or that it has been warming (since pre-industrial times). The world is going to do what it's going to do, regardless of whether you think you've won an argument. So tell me, seeing as it is that important that you win an argument - what argument did you win? I wasn't trying to win an argument. My position remains flexible and nuanced. -- David Connors (da...@codify.com) Software Engineer Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417 189 363 V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact
Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:44 PM, David Connors da...@codify.com wrote: I wasn't trying to win an argument. My position remains flexible and nuanced. Mm, I think I need to add this as a disclaimer to the end of all of my emails. -- David Connors (da...@codify.com) Software Engineer Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417 189 363 V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact -- silky http://www.programmingbranch.com/
Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed
On 24 February 2010 08:56, Craig van Nieuwkerk crai...@gmail.com wrote: really eye popping reading. Conspiracy to delete data, fudge data and models, ensuring the deletion of mail at Hadley and uPen on impending If you take 10 years of emails and correspondence between people in an organisation and pick out a few little bits here and there you can pretty much come up any conclusion you want about someone. The email leaks were meaningless unless you have read ALL of it and been across ALL of their research and correspondence. For example, your email above says ensuring the deletion of mail. I can take this to mean you are trying to cover up some nefarious deed by telling people you are emailing around ensuring the deletion of mail. Of course not, because I have totally take it out of context, just like the emails from the scientists above. God this sounds like something straight off realclimate. Before saying the above, I think you need to *READ* the CRU e-mails and source. Seriously. The material is dreadful. *Beyond dreadful*. You cannot make this stuff up dreadful. There is NOTHING in the UEA leak/hack archives along the lines of your ensuring deletion of mail example. Check this stuff from Phil Jones (the currently (voluntarily) stood down head of the CRU at UEA) ... stuff in [ and ] is from me: And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs [ referring to McKitrick and McIntyre - the main hockey stick debunkers ] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. The UK works on [Freedom of Information] precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his [ climate ] model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. I see that CA [ climateaudit.org ] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!! Phl Jones, Dec 3, 2008: About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all. Phil Jones, Nov 24, 2009 in The Guardian We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish. I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal, -- (Mann not Jones) “I will be emailing the journal [where the editor is sympathetic to a skeptical view point] to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.” We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I [ Phil Jones ] make the data available to you [ Australian scientist Warwick Hughes ] , when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider. All very scientific and entirely out of context as you suggest, right? From the HEAD of the Climate Research Unit at University of East Anglia. Read the original mails yourself - they're widely available on the 'net. When you're done with that have a crack at some of the source code. It'd be different if this was from some inconsequential bit player - but it is not. Again, of course, none of this disproves any particular scientific theory re AGW. If you take 10 years of emails and correspondence between people in an organisation and pick out a few little bits here and there you can pretty much come up any conclusion you want about someone. The above is not a 'few bits here and there' and it is just what I pulled up over a few quick google searches on the UEA archive. I am happy to say there is nothing like any of the above in my inbox or sent items. -- David Connors (da...@codify.com) Software Engineer Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417 189 363 V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact
RE: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed
While not participating, I’m actually finding it interesting and if I lose interest, there’s always: Regards, Greg From: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com [mailto:ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] On Behalf Of mike smith Sent: Tuesday, 23 February 2010 11:28 PM To: ausDotNet Subject: Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed Do we have, or do we want to have, a general OT list? There must be some ppl losing patience with some of these threads. On 24 February 2010 15:27, mike smith meski...@gmail.com wrote: I mean, its failures are not necessarily the fault of the nuclear plants themselves. On 24 February 2010 15:25, ton...@tpg.com.au wrote: yep, exactly. So don't follow Spain then! On Wed, Feb 24th, 2010 at 3:24 PM, mike smith meski...@gmail.com wrote: Spain isn't a poster child for good economy. On 24 February 2010 14:24, ton...@tpg.com.au wrote: Nuclear plant in Finland 3-5billion over budget Siemens Areva Finish govt in law suit love triangle Areva just bought Multibird wind turbines and Ausra solar thermal so they're so sure of Nuclear that they're diversiftying into renewables Spain's SENER built the successful nukes in spain -- has now stopped and is building molten salt power tower solar thermal plants 24 hour baseload solar plants and when they built the nukes they didn't want to own them As for some other nuke plants in Spain that failed to get commissioned Spain lost 6 billion euro's on these. 6 billion euro's -- no power out the other end -- economic modelling not required bad investment On Wed, Feb 24th, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Paul Gaske p...@codify.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:37 AM, mike smith meski...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 February 2010 21:29, Tony Wright ton...@tpg.com.au wrote: And you don’t need to go nuclear. Nuclear as it currently stands is just a disgraceful option. The radioactive waste in current nuclear reactors with current technology takes 10,000 years to break down. That would be excluding IFR reactors? Why exclude the best technology when you quote figures? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor Even more comprehensive are systems such as the Integral Fast Reactorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor (IFR) pyroprocessing system, which uses pools of molten cadmiumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadmium and electrorefiners to reprocess metallic fuel directly on-site at the reactor. [9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#cite_note-8 Such systems not only commingle all the minor actinides with both uranium and plutonium, they are compact and self-contained, so that no plutonium-containing material ever needs to be transported away from the site of the breeder reactor. Just to add to the nuclear option; thorium reactors producing 3% of the waste of a traditional nuclear reactor. Additionally, the waste produced has a half-life of 500 years. http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/scripts98/9820/rundown.htm#thorium -- Paul Gaske (p...@codify.com) Software Engineer Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417 791 916 Address Info: http://www.codify.com/AboutUs/ContactDetails -- Meski Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure, you'll get it, but it's going to be rough - Adam Hills -- Meski Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure, you'll get it, but it's going to be rough - Adam Hills -- Meski Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure, you'll get it, but it's going to be rough - Adam Hills image001.jpg
Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed
On 23 February 2010 17:10, Stephen Liedig slie...@gmail.com wrote: The green initiatives such as wind and solar are the *ultimate goal*, but unfortunately won't be ready as a replacement fossil based energy sources for at least another couple of decades at best. Investment sould continue in these areas but they are not going to fix our problems now or in the short term. My (albeit very limited) understanding of power generation is that you need a consistent base load of power generation to create power for the base level of demand on the grid. This rules out any transient supply as far as I know. Peter Garrett might have to get on the blower to the Blue Sky Mine and friends because the only way you can currently generate base load without building hydro dams is Nuclear. If they come up with New Technology X tomorrow - the first plans won't be able to be turned on at scale for decades. For all Nuclear's safety concerns - at least you can *manage* the waste. [ ... ] The real miracle would be if governments would finally stop coming up with schemes that only encourage us to coninue with our bad habits and start investing in technologies that make our current energy services more efficient. Recyclying energy from factories and mining operations (which we have plenty of) is far more productive that any renewable energy source we currently have. By doing that we produce more net energy, without actually using more fossil fuels to generate the same amount of energy, and thereby reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we generate. We recently moved from a large five bedroom house with a massive A/C plant into a more modest place without A/C. When we had our second kid (born in Dec 08) we ran the A/C all the time to keep him cool - the bill for that quarter was $1100. In this new house without A/C our last quarter for the same time was $78 (note I'm not trying to be all haughty/holier than thou in saying this - we just don't have A/C because the new house didn't come with it and we're demolishing it [?]). In talking to people quarterly power bills for people with A/C of $500++ are not at all uncommon. It occurs to me that we could all significantly reduce our power consumption by a large proportion without too much government intervention at all! Unfortunately, like all feel-good causes, everyone agrees that there is a need for a change so long as YOU make the change NOT ME. Al Gore's family are grown up. The Gates Family could live in a nice 2-3 bedroom apartment - yet I know I certainly wouldn't be telling my family to man up and enjoy the heat if it weren't for the transient nature of our house. Hands up everyone who is worried about AGW and wants to disconnect their A/C at home and work, sell their car to only catch the bus, move into a small unit, have no power hungry XBOX/PS3/gaming rig/whatever at home? *crickets* Its a huge discussion, but if people like Bill (who made him an expert in energy matters anyway?) start talking about miracles, then we would be best served talking about miracles that can help us now, not in 40 years when alternatives are at a level to replace our dependance on fossil fuels. Personally, I don't think we can wait that long. The merits or not of the main AGW arguments and the concomitant worrying are a whole discussion in itself - especially in light of the debacle that is IPCC AR4 and the EUA leak/hack. For now though, people could significantly cut the gross CO2 they emit through simple lifestyle changes. Instead, people don't. They turn their lights off for Earth Hour and think that helps - or buy carbon credits if they're rich so they can belch and fart as much as they want without worrying about any implications. The gross figure is the only one that matters - bulldoze Australia into the Pacific tomorrow and the gross improvement for the planet is stuff all. -- David Connors (da...@codify.com) Software Engineer Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417 189 363 V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact 330.gif
RE: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed
Ken, can you provide web address for the synthesis report? From: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com [mailto:ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] On Behalf Of Ken Schaefer Sent: Tuesday, 23 February 2010 7:48 PM To: ausDotNet Subject: RE: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed From: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com [mailto:ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] On Behalf Of David Connors Sent: Tuesday, 23 February 2010 5:28 PM To: ausDotNet Subject: Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed Hands up everyone who is worried about AGW and wants to disconnect their A/C at home and work, sell their car to only catch the bus, move into a small unit, have no power hungry XBOX/PS3/gaming rig/whatever at home? *crickets* This is why we should have a tax-and-dividend policy. If you want to pollute, you have to pay to pollute, and everyone gets a rebate check (so, it’s all revenue neutral). You choose what you want to cut back on. You can either cut back a little on things that pollute a lot, or you can cut back a lot on things that don’t pollute much. Either way, the choice is yours. Its a huge discussion, but if people like Bill (who made him an expert in energy matters anyway?) start talking about miracles, then we would be best served talking about miracles that can help us now, not in 40 years when alternatives are at a level to replace our dependance on fossil fuels. Personally, I don't think we can wait that long. The merits or not of the main AGW arguments and the concomitant worrying are a whole discussion in itself - especially in light of the debacle that is IPCC AR4 and the EUA leak/hack. The IPCC AR4 isn’t a debacle. That’s hyperbole pure and simple. The entire synthesis report has to be signed off by all participating governments. That included our own sceptical Liberal government, and G W Bush, and major petroleum exporting countries. Every major scientific body (including our own CSIRO) has signed off on the synthesis report. I’m not aware of any issues that have been highlighted with the WG (Working Group) 1 report, which examines the scientific basis for our believe in AGW. It summarises thousands of studies, across all major scientific fields, and the correlation of thousands of studies seems to present fairly compelling evidence. As for people who like to complain about “modelling” – I think we all agree that models aren’t perfect. But all models used need to be able to accurately model the past, and our models are constantly improving, and so is available computing power. When the AR1 came out, we had roughly 200Mhz machines on our desktops. Now we have multi-core Ghz machines, and correspondingly so has our ability to deliver more sophisticated models. And this will continue for the foreseeable future. Some models are have source code available, so you are able to go see yourself what you might think are the problems with them. But whatever quibbles we have along the edges, they all predict an outcome that isn’t a status quo, or a cooling. Cheers Ken
RE: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed
My understanding is that the base load problem has been solved, it’s just that there’s no political will to accept it. That is, there is too much vested interest in the alternatives and a lot of money spent by some very powerful groups to promote the status quo, as that’s where they make their money. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/thinktanks-take-oil-money-and-use-it-to-fund-climate-deniers-1891747.html “There are plants in Spain operating with energy storage right now, providing electricity all night long” http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/ And you don’t need to go nuclear. Nuclear as it currently stands is just a disgraceful option. The radioactive waste in current nuclear reactors with current technology takes 10,000 years to break down. 10,000 years ago, mankind was living in caves. Nuclear is obviously the politically easy option. And it would take at least a decade to fire up a nuclear reactor anyway. By that time there would be monumental advances in cleaner technologies. And as for “managing” nuclear – name me a politician that you believe can manage that portfolio and I’ll name ten more that I wouldn’t trust if my life depended on it. Oh wait, it does. T. From: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com [mailto:ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] On Behalf Of David Connors Sent: Tuesday, 23 February 2010 8:28 PM To: ausDotNet Subject: Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed On 23 February 2010 17:10, Stephen Liedig slie...@gmail.com wrote: The green initiatives such as wind and solar are the ultimate goal, but unfortunately won't be ready as a replacement fossil based energy sources for at least another couple of decades at best. Investment sould continue in these areas but they are not going to fix our problems now or in the short term. My (albeit very limited) understanding of power generation is that you need a consistent base load of power generation to create power for the base level of demand on the grid. This rules out any transient supply as far as I know. Peter Garrett might have to get on the blower to the Blue Sky Mine and friends because the only way you can currently generate base load without building hydro dams is Nuclear. If they come up with New Technology X tomorrow - the first plans won't be able to be turned on at scale for decades. For all Nuclear's safety concerns - at least you can *manage* the waste. [ ... ] The real miracle would be if governments would finally stop coming up with schemes that only encourage us to coninue with our bad habits and start investing in technologies that make our current energy services more efficient. Recyclying energy from factories and mining operations (which we have plenty of) is far more productive that any renewable energy source we currently have. By doing that we produce more net energy, without actually using more fossil fuels to generate the same amount of energy, and thereby reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we generate. We recently moved from a large five bedroom house with a massive A/C plant into a more modest place without A/C. When we had our second kid (born in Dec 08) we ran the A/C all the time to keep him cool - the bill for that quarter was $1100. In this new house without A/C our last quarter for the same time was $78 (note I'm not trying to be all haughty/holier than thou in saying this - we just don't have A/C because the new house didn't come with it and we're demolishing it ). In talking to people quarterly power bills for people with A/C of $500++ are not at all uncommon. It occurs to me that we could all significantly reduce our power consumption by a large proportion without too much government intervention at all! Unfortunately, like all feel-good causes, everyone agrees that there is a need for a change so long as YOU make the change NOT ME. Al Gore's family are grown up. The Gates Family could live in a nice 2-3 bedroom apartment - yet I know I certainly wouldn't be telling my family to man up and enjoy the heat if it weren't for the transient nature of our house. Hands up everyone who is worried about AGW and wants to disconnect their A/C at home and work, sell their car to only catch the bus, move into a small unit, have no power hungry XBOX/PS3/gaming rig/whatever at home? *crickets* Its a huge discussion, but if people like Bill (who made him an expert in energy matters anyway?) start talking about miracles, then we would be best served talking about miracles that can help us now, not in 40 years when alternatives are at a level to replace our dependance on fossil fuels. Personally, I don't think we can wait that long. The merits or not of the main AGW arguments and the concomitant worrying are a whole discussion in itself - especially in light of the debacle that is IPCC AR4 and the EUA leak/hack. For now though, people
RE: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm the SPM is the “Summary for Policy Makers” – a very concise summary of the Synthesis report, or you can get the main Synthesis report. WG1 - the scientific evidence for climate change is available here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm (note this is fairly weighty tome – a couple of thousand pages IIRC, but you can look at the chapters that cover the areas you are most interested in, e.g. oceanic observations or satellite data etc.) Cheers Ken From: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com [mailto:ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] On Behalf Of Richard Jones Sent: Tuesday, 23 February 2010 6:27 PM To: 'ausDotNet' Subject: RE: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed Ken, can you provide web address for the synthesis report? From: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com [mailto:ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] On Behalf Of Ken Schaefer Sent: Tuesday, 23 February 2010 7:48 PM To: ausDotNet Subject: RE: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed From: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com [mailto:ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] On Behalf Of David Connors Sent: Tuesday, 23 February 2010 5:28 PM To: ausDotNet Subject: Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed Hands up everyone who is worried about AGW and wants to disconnect their A/C at home and work, sell their car to only catch the bus, move into a small unit, have no power hungry XBOX/PS3/gaming rig/whatever at home? *crickets* This is why we should have a tax-and-dividend policy. If you want to pollute, you have to pay to pollute, and everyone gets a rebate check (so, it’s all revenue neutral). You choose what you want to cut back on. You can either cut back a little on things that pollute a lot, or you can cut back a lot on things that don’t pollute much. Either way, the choice is yours. Its a huge discussion, but if people like Bill (who made him an expert in energy matters anyway?) start talking about miracles, then we would be best served talking about miracles that can help us now, not in 40 years when alternatives are at a level to replace our dependance on fossil fuels. Personally, I don't think we can wait that long. The merits or not of the main AGW arguments and the concomitant worrying are a whole discussion in itself - especially in light of the debacle that is IPCC AR4 and the EUA leak/hack. The IPCC AR4 isn’t a debacle. That’s hyperbole pure and simple. The entire synthesis report has to be signed off by all participating governments. That included our own sceptical Liberal government, and G W Bush, and major petroleum exporting countries. Every major scientific body (including our own CSIRO) has signed off on the synthesis report. I’m not aware of any issues that have been highlighted with the WG (Working Group) 1 report, which examines the scientific basis for our believe in AGW. It summarises thousands of studies, across all major scientific fields, and the correlation of thousands of studies seems to present fairly compelling evidence. As for people who like to complain about “modelling” – I think we all agree that models aren’t perfect. But all models used need to be able to accurately model the past, and our models are constantly improving, and so is available computing power. When the AR1 came out, we had roughly 200Mhz machines on our desktops. Now we have multi-core Ghz machines, and correspondingly so has our ability to deliver more sophisticated models. And this will continue for the foreseeable future. Some models are have source code available, so you are able to go see yourself what you might think are the problems with them. But whatever quibbles we have along the edges, they all predict an outcome that isn’t a status quo, or a cooling. Cheers Ken
Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed
On 23 February 2010 21:18, Ken Schaefer k...@adopenstatic.com wrote: I never label people as “deniers”, nor do I cut people off. If you have an alternate viewpoint, I’d like to see what evidence you have to support that viewpoint. Since you’ve put the claim out there… I didn't say you did. I thought you might have found those as 'in jokes' from reading the UEA material. Sorry - bad assumption on my part and I apoligise. The 'big cut off' was a reference to the mail from Schlesinger to Andy Revkin of the NYT. Revkin's mail was unkind, but Schlesinger reply was revealing. http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/12/climate-scientist-threatens-boycott-of.html So you need to write pro-AGW in the New York Times or we won't talk to you. Awesome. I’m not aware of any issues that have been highlighted with the WG (Working Group) 1 report, which examines the scientific basis for our believe in AGW. You won't be seeing much of a scientific basis or otherwise for discussing any other point of view in anything out of the IPCC by design. Jones, Mann, Pachauri, et al seem to have that pretty stitched up. Science doesn’t start from preconceived notions and eventually whatever if the theory that best describes what we are able to observe will win out. That have been shown time and time again, whether it be Relativity or Evolution or our model of the Universe. And again, what is produced need to be signed off by 150 odd governments (some of which have a vested interest in pumping more oil, or exporting more coal), and a large number of scientific bodies. It is not possible for a handful of people to continually suppress scientific evidence to the contrary. Au contraire. :) Read on. How many AGW articles did william connelly edit by hand as a one man band? 5000+ wasn't it? It summarises thousands of studies, across all major scientific fields, and the correlation of thousands of studies seems to present fairly compelling evidence. I think the average punter, and *especially* policy makers, are more interested in the output of WG2 (the part of IPCC AR4 that deals with *impacts* and what we are to expect). Since we seem to be debating the actual existence of AGW, that’s not in WG2 – it’s in WG1 I think the existence of AGW is a foregone conclusion by everyone else on this thread so I'm just along for the ride. ;) AGW is too broad a term to be useful in discussing the world's climate IMO. More usefully: 1. Is the world warming or cooling or staying the same? 2. If so by how much? 3. Is it unprecedented? 4. Given 2, how much is dangerous. 5. Given 2, how much is caused by man vs not. 6. Given 5, what can we reasonably do to offset 4. or something like that. Are you aware of any issues from WG2? :) Do those issues actual detract from the central messages in WG2? insert any debacle here does not disprove any of the science of AGW is the catch cry of UEA etc. They wrote off the entire hack archive as such - but even a cursory reading of the material really makes you stop and think if you look at it with an open mind. Specifically re WG2 ... we know we're only to use peer-reviewed science and Mann co have been calling people pretty awful stuff for not quoting the peer reviewed literature for some time ... so citing: - over a dozen WWF brochures/reports - From the synthesis report: Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high. Publicly available IPCC archives of the review process show that during the formal review, the Japanese government also questioned the 2035 claim. It commented: This seems to be a very important statement. What is the confidence level/certainty? Soon afterwards, a reference to the WWF report was added to the final draft. But the statement otherwise went unchanged. (Source? Ahhh ummm... 2005 report via WWF (they're not biased) - but don't worry - they did quote a 1999 article from New Scientist from a telephone interview with some guy in India) - Climbing (a mountain climbing magazine) - an antarctic tourism operator guide for advice on how to clean you shoes hopping on or off boats “The multiple stresses of climate change and increasing human activity on the Antarctic Peninsula represent a clear vulnerability (see Section 15.6.3), and have necessitated the implementation of stringent clothing decontamination guidelines for tourist landings on the Antarctic Peninsula (IAATO, 2005).” (NOTE: cited instructions on how to clean your shoes does not even mention climate change .. just ... ummm - how to clean your shoes getting on and off boats to protect the pristine antarctic environment.) - Numerous newspapers. Hell it would not surprise me if this thread showed up in AR5 citing Schaefer and Connors, 2010 etc Call me a horrible skeptic but the above is citations are REALLY rich considering most the
RE: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed
“Nuclear as it currently stands is just a disgraceful option. The radioactive waste in current nuclear reactors with current technology takes 10,000 years to break down. 10,000 years ago” Maybe the real issue is that current nuclear technology hasn’t isn’t advanced enough yet. If the waste is still emitting radiation (energy) for 10,000 years then surely there is a way to capture that energy for further power generation? Otherwise that energy is just going to waste. Dave From: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com [mailto:ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] On Behalf Of Tony Wright Sent: Tuesday, 23 February 2010 9:29 PM To: 'ausDotNet' Subject: RE: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed My understanding is that the base load problem has been solved, it’s just that there’s no political will to accept it. That is, there is too much vested interest in the alternatives and a lot of money spent by some very powerful groups to promote the status quo, as that’s where they make their money. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/thinktanks-take-oil-money-and-use-it-to-fund-climate-deniers-1891747.html “There are plants in Spain operating with energy storage right now, providing electricity all night long” http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/ And you don’t need to go nuclear. Nuclear as it currently stands is just a disgraceful option. The radioactive waste in current nuclear reactors with current technology takes 10,000 years to break down. 10,000 years ago, mankind was living in caves. Nuclear is obviously the politically easy option. And it would take at least a decade to fire up a nuclear reactor anyway. By that time there would be monumental advances in cleaner technologies. And as for “managing” nuclear – name me a politician that you believe can manage that portfolio and I’ll name ten more that I wouldn’t trust if my life depended on it. Oh wait, it does. T. From: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com [mailto:ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] On Behalf Of David Connors Sent: Tuesday, 23 February 2010 8:28 PM To: ausDotNet Subject: Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed On 23 February 2010 17:10, Stephen Liedig slie...@gmail.commailto:slie...@gmail.com wrote: The green initiatives such as wind and solar are the ultimate goal, but unfortunately won't be ready as a replacement fossil based energy sources for at least another couple of decades at best. Investment sould continue in these areas but they are not going to fix our problems now or in the short term. My (albeit very limited) understanding of power generation is that you need a consistent base load of power generation to create power for the base level of demand on the grid. This rules out any transient supply as far as I know. Peter Garrett might have to get on the blower to the Blue Sky Mine and friends because the only way you can currently generate base load without building hydro dams is Nuclear. If they come up with New Technology X tomorrow - the first plans won't be able to be turned on at scale for decades. For all Nuclear's safety concerns - at least you can *manage* the waste. [ ... ] The real miracle would be if governments would finally stop coming up with schemes that only encourage us to coninue with our bad habits and start investing in technologies that make our current energy services more efficient. Recyclying energy from factories and mining operations (which we have plenty of) is far more productive that any renewable energy source we currently have. By doing that we produce more net energy, without actually using more fossil fuels to generate the same amount of energy, and thereby reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we generate. We recently moved from a large five bedroom house with a massive A/C plant into a more modest place without A/C. When we had our second kid (born in Dec 08) we ran the A/C all the time to keep him cool - the bill for that quarter was $1100. In this new house without A/C our last quarter for the same time was $78 (note I'm not trying to be all haughty/holier than thou in saying this - we just don't have A/C because the new house didn't come with it and we're demolishing it [cid:image001.gif@01CAB51D.140AEDA0] ). In talking to people quarterly power bills for people with A/C of $500++ are not at all uncommon. It occurs to me that we could all significantly reduce our power consumption by a large proportion without too much government intervention at all! Unfortunately, like all feel-good causes, everyone agrees that there is a need for a change so long as YOU make the change NOT ME. Al Gore's family are grown up. The Gates Family could live in a nice 2-3 bedroom apartment - yet I know I certainly wouldn't be telling my family to man up and enjoy the heat if it weren't for the transient nature of our house. Hands up everyone who is worried about AGW and wants
Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed
Check out the UEA mail leaks as it does not sound like you have. It is really eye popping reading. Conspiracy to delete data, fudge data and models, ensuring the deletion of mail at Hadley and uPen on impending assessment report findings, constant withholding of data and source code preventing independent verification of findings, conspiring to illegally block perfectly valid freedom of information requests - it is all there if you want to have a long read. These are not bit players on the fringe - we're talking about the core team - Jones, Mann, Briffa, Trenberth, Schmidt, et al. If you take 10 years of emails and correspondence between people in an organisation and pick out a few little bits here and there you can pretty much come up any conclusion you want about someone. The email leaks were meaningless unless you have read ALL of it and been across ALL of their research and correspondence. For example, your email above says ensuring the deletion of mail. I can take this to mean you are trying to cover up some nefarious deed by telling people you are emailing around ensuring the deletion of mail. Of course not, because I have totally take it out of context, just like the emails from the scientists above. Craig Craig.
Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:37 AM, mike smith meski...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 February 2010 21:29, Tony Wright ton...@tpg.com.au wrote: And you don’t need to go nuclear. Nuclear as it currently stands is just a disgraceful option. The radioactive waste in current nuclear reactors with current technology takes 10,000 years to break down. That would be excluding IFR reactors? Why exclude the best technology when you quote figures? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor Even more comprehensive are systems such as the Integral Fast Reactorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor (IFR) pyroprocessing system, which uses pools of molten cadmiumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadmium and electrorefiners to reprocess metallic fuel directly on-site at the reactor. [9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#cite_note-8 Such systems not only commingle all the minor actinides with both uranium and plutonium, they are compact and self-contained, so that no plutonium-containing material ever needs to be transported away from the site of the breeder reactor. Just to add to the nuclear option; thorium reactors producing 3% of the waste of a traditional nuclear reactor. Additionally, the waste produced has a half-life of 500 years. http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/scripts98/9820/rundown.htm#thorium -- Paul Gaske (p...@codify.com) Software Engineer Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417 791 916 Address Info: http://www.codify.com/AboutUs/ContactDetails
Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed
On 24 February 2010 12:59, Tiang Cheng tiang.ch...@staff.iinet.net.auwrote: Any scientist can claims they can forecast a change in temperature better have won a nobel prize for their work before I'ld believe them. You actually don't need to do the actual forecast, just make a movie about it. ;) David. -- David Connors (da...@codify.com) Software Engineer Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417 189 363 V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact
RE: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed
ah, so you don't believe weather forecasters can tell you when summer and winter occur? We're talking long term here, not what the weather is going to be like tomorrow. On Wed, Feb 24th, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Tiang Cheng tiang.ch...@staff.iinet.net.au wrote: When people talk about weather science (like climate change), I remember a famous (longwinded) quote from a Bob Ryan - a meteorologist. In 1982 he wrote Imagine a rotating sphere that is 12,800 kilometers in diameter, has a bumpy surface, is surrounded by a 40-kilometer-deep mixture of different gases whose concentrations vary both spatially and over time, and is heated, along with its surrounding gases, by a nuclear reactor 150 million kilometers away. Imagine also that this sphere is revolving around the nuclear reactor and that some locations are heated more during one part of the revolution and other locations are heated during another part of the revolution. And imagine that this mixture of gases continually receives inputs from the surface below, generally calmly but sometimes through violent and highly localized injections. Then, imagine that after watching the gaseous mixture, you are expected to predict its state at one location on the sphere one, two, or more days into the future. This is essentially the task encountered day by day by a weather forecaster. Or, as we like to say, The forecast was right, it's the weather that got it wrong! As a keen kitesurfer and weekend sailor so I check weather forecasts every 6 hours (so it seems :P). it boggles my mind that weather forecasts can be so different even in such a short period. Any scientist can claims they can forecast a change in temperature better have won a nobel prize for their work before I'ld believe them. -Original Message- From: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com [mailto:ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] On Behalf Of ton...@tpg.com.au Sent: Wednesday, 24 February 2010 6:09 AM To: ausDotNet Subject: Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed I think you miss the point. It's not about whether or not we should have a debate about it. Only the scientifically proven facts are important, not heresay based on heresay based on heresay. And the skeptics can't simply pick and choose the points that they are going to argue about without looking at the overall picture. It all comes down to who you trust to interpret the data. And I put my money on the scientists, no matter how much mud gets thrown at them. T. On Wed, Feb 24th, 2010 at 12:31 AM, David Connors da...@codify.com wrote: On 23 February 2010 21:18, Ken Schaefer k...@adopenstatic.com wrote: I never label people as ââ¬Ådeniersââ¬Â, nor do I cut people off. If you have an alternate viewpoint, Iââ¬â¢d like to see what evidence you have to support that viewpoint. Since youââ¬â¢ve put the claim out thereââ¬Â¦ I didn't say you did. I thought you might have found those as 'in jokes' from reading the UEA material. Sorry - bad assumption on my part and I apoligise. The 'big cut off' was a reference to the mail from Schlesinger to Andy Revkin of the NYT. Revkin's mail was unkind, but Schlesinger reply was revealing. http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/12/climate-scientist-threatens-boycott-of.html So you need to write pro-AGW in the New York Times or we won't talk to you. Awesome. Iââ¬â¢m not aware of any issues that have been highlighted with the WG (Working Group) 1 report, which examines the scientific basis for our believe in AGW. You won't be seeing much of a scientific basis or otherwise for discussing any other point of view in anything out of the IPCC by design. Jones, Mann, Pachauri, et al seem to have that pretty stitched up. Science doesnââ¬â¢t start from preconceived notions and eventually whatever if the theory that best describes what we are able to observe will win out. That have been shown time and time again, whether it be Relativity or Evolution or our model of the Universe. And again, what is produced need to be signed off by 150 odd governments (some of which have a vested interest in pumping more oil, or exporting more coal), and a large number of scientific bodies. It is not possible for a handful of people to continually suppress scientific evidence to the contrary. Au contraire. :) Read on. How many AGW articles did william connelly edit by hand as a one man band? 5000+ wasn't it? It summarises thousands of studies, across all major scientific fields, and the correlation of thousands of studies seems to present fairly compelling evidence. I think the average punter, and *especially* policy makers, are more interested in the output of WG2 (the part of IPCC AR4 that deals with *impacts* and what we are to expect
Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed
Nuclear plant in Finland 3-5billion over budget Siemens Areva Finish govt in law suit love triangle Areva just bought Multibird wind turbines and Ausra solar thermal so they're so sure of Nuclear that they're diversiftying into renewables Spain's SENER built the successful nukes in spain -- has now stopped and is building molten salt power tower solar thermal plants 24 hour baseload solar plants and when they built the nukes they didn't want to own them As for some other nuke plants in Spain that failed to get commissioned Spain lost 6 billion euro's on these. 6 billion euro's -- no power out the other end -- economic modelling not required bad investment On Wed, Feb 24th, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Paul Gaske p...@codify.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:37 AM, mike smith meski...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 February 2010 21:29, Tony Wright ton...@tpg.com.au wrote: And you donât need to go nuclear. Nuclear as it currently stands is just a disgraceful option. The radioactive waste in current nuclear reactors with current technology takes 10,000 years to break down. That would be excluding IFR reactors? Why exclude the best technology when you quote figures? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor Even more comprehensive are systems such as the Integral Fast Reactorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor (IFR) pyroprocessing system, which uses pools of molten cadmiumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadmium and electrorefiners to reprocess metallic fuel directly on-site at the reactor. [9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#cite_note-8 Such systems not only commingle all the minor actinides with both uranium and plutonium, they are compact and self-contained, so that no plutonium-containing material ever needs to be transported away from the site of the breeder reactor. Just to add to the nuclear option; thorium reactors producing 3% of the waste of a traditional nuclear reactor. Additionally, the waste produced has a half-life of 500 years. http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/scripts98/9820/rundown.htm#thorium -- Paul Gaske (p...@codify.com) Software Engineer Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417 791 916 Address Info: http://www.codify.com/AboutUs/ContactDetails
Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed
Not really sure if Bill deserved a standing ovation for this. He didn't actually tell us anything new other than his nuclear interests and he was pretty vague on the details. Bill's heart is in the right place but a little misguided. Unfortunately, not all of Bills 5 energy miracles are sustanable or practical. The problems with his approach (and of most governments) is that everyone seems to be focused on solutions that are decades away from being a reliable source of alternative energy. The green initiatives such as wind and solar are the *ultimate goal*, but unfortunately won't be ready as a replacement fossil based energy sources for at least another couple of decades at best. Investment sould continue in these areas but they are not going to fix our problems now or in the short term. Carbon capture is a false economy, and is an idea that IMHO should be obandoned straight away. What are we going to do, dig one hole after another to bury our waste? How much is that going to cost? How much energy is required to store the co2 in the first place? It certainly doesn't get their itself. What benefits do we get from carbon capture if it takes more energy to store it, costing god knows how much in infrastrucure and maintenance and produces no net benefit to the consumer or the economy? Not a miricle in my opinion. The real miracle would be if governments would finally stop coming up with schemes that only encourage us to coninue with our bad habits and start investing in technologies that make our current energy services more efficient. Recyclying energy from factories and mining operations (which we have plenty of) is far more productive that any renewable energy source we currently have. By doing that we produce more net energy, without actually using more fossil fuels to generate the same amount of energy, and thereby reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we generate. Its a huge discussion, but if people like Bill (who made him an expert in energy matters anyway?) start talking about miracles, then we would be best served talking about miracles that can help us now, not in 40 years when alternatives are at a level to replace our dependance on fossil fuels. Personally, I don't think we can wait that long. Steve
RE: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed
Well, comment without fully acquainting yourself with the content is rather arrogant and pointless. Which is why I commented that I found the summary from the TED people inadequate. Ian Thomas Victoria Park, Western Australia -Original Message- From: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com [mailto:ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] On Behalf Of silky Sent: Sunday, 21 February 2010 6:18 PM To: ausDotNet Subject: Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Ian Thomas il.tho...@iinet.net.au wrote: Sunday OT - way off track for .NET, but there is a 28-minute talk by Bill Gates given recently at TED 2010 called Gates on energy: Innovating to zero! I thought that some may be interested in Bill Gates' perspective. Summary: At TED2010, Bill Gates unveils his vision for the world's energy future, describing the need for miracles to avoid planetary catastrophe and explaining why he's backing a dramatically different type of nuclear reactor. The necessary goal? Zero carbon emissions globally by 2050. I find it fairly annoying that this would be called a miracle; it makes the word itself kind of useless, but anyway, that's probably just the hype of having to do a public talk on it. I do think it's good if a significant amount of money is spent in this area; and he certainly has that capacity (as well as encouraging others) so that's nice to see. What would really be nice if he not only funded his own ideas, but others, to hedge the bets, so to speak. But maybe he's already doine that (I certainly don't plan to watch the video to find out). Ian Thomas Victoria Park, Western Australia -- silky http://island.mirios.com.au/t/silkyblog http://www.mirios.com.au/ http://island.mirios.com.au/t/rigby+random+20
Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed
On 21 February 2010 19:33, Ian Thomas il.tho...@iinet.net.au wrote: Summary: At TED2010, Bill Gates unveils his vision for the world's energy future, describing the need for miracles to avoid planetary catastrophe I just watched the video and it seems he is an agw worrier - which I found surprising - I didn't expect that. He even recommended an Al Gore book and referred to the IPCC. I guess at least if he has read IPCC AR4 and followed up the reference material, he'll know how to clean his shoes properly. I was *really* surprised when he said: If you can make it [clean energy] economic and meet the CO2 constraints [of zero CO2 emissions], then the skeptics will say I don't care if it puts out CO2 and I wish it would put out CO2 but I'll accept it because it is cheaper. Good old climate change: The debate is over (especially if you're a roof insulation installer in Australia). David. -- David Connors (da...@codify.com) Software Engineer Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417 189 363 V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact
Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed
On 22 February 2010 10:22, Ken Schaefer k...@adopenstatic.com wrote: DC Quite right. I'd actually argue that cr4p government in most of the developing world is a cause of such problems - not a carbon debt The cause of what problems? Deforestation. -- David Connors (da...@codify.com) Software Engineer Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417 189 363 V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact
