I am real ok, with this as well, I have read, in years past, the Amory Lovins, view on things. However behind all the savings, let us agree that due to Newtonian Laws, and Carnot Cycles, we cannot forever, postpone moving to a new energy regime. If you can do it with solar or antimatter, please do. No, I am not trying to be snarky about this, but we cannot move forward away from the dirty unless you can present the clean. I am ok with clean, as long as we really have it.
-----Original Message----- From: Chris de Morsella <cdemorse...@yahoo.com> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Fri, Nov 15, 2013 9:03 pm Subject: RE: Global warming silliness From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 5:14 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Global warming silliness >>To perform a fix on the climate, and I am giving the IPCC supporters the >>benefit of the doubt, we must have abundant clean sources at the ready. We >>need terawatts of clean, because gigawatts are insufficient. Some can be >>replaced by higher efficiency homes and devices, and cars-but this will only >>takes us so far. Think terawatts, not negawatts, and what tech we are going >>to use to replace the dirty? Faster please. You ignore the potential easily realizable savings that can be achieved by retro-fitting our existing buildings and homes. Thiis is truly the low hanging fruit and the scale of potential on-going energy savings is huge. For example Read report: http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/electricpowernaturalgas/US_energy_efficiency/ The global consulting firm estimates that $520 billion in investments would reduce U.S. non-transportation energy usage by 9.1 quadrillion BTUs by 2020 - roughly 23 percent of projected demand. As a result, the U.S. economy would save more than $1.2 trillion and avoid the release of some 1.1 gigatons of annual greenhouse gases, an amount equal to replacing 1,000 conventional 500-megawatt coal-fired power plants with renewable energy. Or the comparison given in the report “The reduction in energy use would also result in the abatement of 1.1 gigatons of greenhouse-gas emissions annually—the equivalent of taking the entire US fleet of passenger vehicles and light trucks off the roads.” Achieving this kind of reduction in producing carbon dioxide and in annual fossil energy consumption is not nibbling at the problem around the edges – this represents the single largest and most important & immediate thing we can do to change the picture on the ground. And is something that will need to be done anyway. Doing this will increase the energy security (and military and economic security as well) of the US by making our country much leaner and able to prosper and live in comfort on far less energy – an carbon footprint impact the equivalent of removing the entire fleet of cars and light truck from the nation’s roads and highways. You cannot get more major impact than that. Chris -----Original Message----- From: meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Thu, Nov 14, 2013 7:23 pm Subject: Re: Global warming silliness On 11/14/2013 4:20 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > Yes. > > I proposed myself not to argue against sectarian apocalypticists because that is a waste > of time, but honoring those of you that are not seduced by the > end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it movement, I will say something: Alas, some people just can't be relied on. > > Climatic models are bullshit. if you look at how they adjust parameters looking at the > climategate mails you will have no doubt. Starting from that funny way for manufacturing > models, it is no surprise that they predict nothing as Telmo said. First, the general circulation model developed at East Anglia is only one of a dozen or more and they all predict increasing temperature - including the pencil and paper calculation of Arhennius. In fact it's trivially easy to see that increased CO2 will raise the earth's temperature. CO2 absorbs light energy in infrared bands that are otherwise transparent. Without CO2 the planet would be too cold for human habitation (as already realized by Fourier). The difficulty in making accurate predictions of how much the CO2 we're adding will raise temperatures comes from accounting for the positive feedback effect of water vapor. Most models assume the world average relative humidity will stay the same. Some try to model ocean circulation from deep to shallow and assume water vapor pressure stays in equilibrium with the ocean surface. But these don't make any difference to the long term conclusion. > There is a model of the earth nucleus. It is very good. Why? Because it behaves like > the real nucleus. It invert polarity every 14000 years I believe, dont want > to fire up > the wikipedia to get the real digits. That is why it is a good model. Just like climate models parameter values have been inferred by matching past data. > > What would be a good test of a climatic model?. We know that at the glacial eras started > when North and South America united by the istmus of Panama closed the free water > movement between the atlantic and pacific. That changed the global water flow regimes > and resulted in the two polar ice caps. > > It is easy to configure the continents in the climate models and see what happens in > each configuration of the american continents. Why they dont try it?. Because they know > that their models are lacking decades of research to get accurate enough for the > simplest long term prediction. More obfuscation. If more solar energy is retained by the atmosphere the planet will get hotter until it can radiate as much as received. Moving continents around can only affect the local distribution. This is the same tactic as Creationists who point to the clotting sequence or the flagellum and declare, "Let's see evolution explain THAT." Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
